Skip to main content

Full text of "Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Appeals"

See other formats


San Francisco Public Library 

Govei > n Center 

San Library 

locr 
San . o.CA S4102 

REFERENCE BOOK 



Not to be taken from the Library 



7L00O 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 



^ 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12^2000^ 
5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL. ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
JAN - 7 2000 



(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : Letter from Malin Giddings requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit 
Application No. 9921417 issued to Frank Lembi for repair of damaged partitions and installation of new 
lightweight partitions at the existing laundry room and fully sprinkled rear garage at 2677 Larkin Street. 

Date issued October 8, 1999 

Last day to appeal October 25, 1 999 

Request for jurisdiction November 12, 1999 

ITEM B : Letter from Ahmad Mohazab of Tecta Associates requesting that the Board take jurisdiction 
over Variance Decision 99.613V, a denial by the Zoning Administrator of a parking variance at 1133 
Hayes Street. 

Date of variance decision December 2, 1999 

Last day to appeal December 1 3, 1 999 

Request for jurisdiction December 21, 1999 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM C : Letter from Frank Bacon, on behalf of the 3995 Alemany Boulevard Project Committee, 
Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 99-178 to 183. Hearing December 15, 1999. Upon 
motion by President Mclnemey, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioners Saunders absent) to UPHOLD the 
permits on CONDITION that the Panama alley be widened to 30', and that the 6-8 trees on Panama alley 
shall be retained, with FINDINGS as stated on the record by Vice President Chin. 

iTEivi D : Letter from Jason 5. Squire, Appeiiant, requesting rehearing of Appeal 99-164. Hearing 
December 15, 1999. Upon motion by Vice President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Saunders 
absent) to UPHOLD the permit at 1082 Pennsylvania Avenue on CONDITION that an additional 3' 
setback be added to unit 406, and that unit 405 be revised to have a 45 degree sloped roof of fire 
retardant glass (or wire mesh glass) on its northerly side. 

(4) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Police Department, the Board will proceed to a vote without 
testimony to lift the revocation. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal 
individually. 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 99-176 

GIUSEPPE SPINOSO, dba "FIZZ SUPPER CLUB", [Revocation on November 1, 1999, of 

Appellant [Place of Entertainment permit at 471 

vs. [Pine Street. 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [PERMIT NO. 0976. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 12, 2000 - PAGE 2 



[AB) APPEAL NO. 99-186 

JOEL LEMUS. Appellant [Revocation on November 4, 1999, of 

vs. [Tow Car Driver permit. 

POLICE DEPARTMENT. Respondent [PERMIT NO. 0989. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

Items (5A) and (5B) shall be heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 98-035 

VICTOR TWAL dba "BUDDIES", Appellant [Denial on February 13, 1998, of permit 

vs. [to Alter a Building (legalize 3' x 4' x 1 2'6" 

DEPT BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [awning and sign installed without 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [permit) at 498 Sanchez Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9723854. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 99-197 

MICHAEL CRAWFORD & TOM HANUS, [Denial on December 7, 1999, of permit 

dba "CHAT CAFE", Appellant [for 12 chairs on sidewalk at 498 

vs. [Sanchez Street. 

DEPART c NT of PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent [FOR HEARING TODAY. 

PLANNI, j DEPARTMENT DISSAPROVAL 



(6) APPEAL NO. 99-137 

JAMILA CHAMPSI & FARAH CHAMPSI, Appellants [Protesting issuance on August 16, 1999, 

vs. [to Betty Jo Hardison, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (vertical and horizontal addi- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [tions) at 2931 Pierce Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9805281 S. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(7) APPEAL NO. 99-144 

ADIL & LORI WAKIL, ALVIN & GLADYS IACONO, [Protesting issuance on September 3, 

Appellants [1999, to James Lucey, permit to Erect a 

vs. [Building (three-story single-family 

DEPT BUILIDNG INSPECTION, Respondent [dwelling) at 1993 - 14 th Avenue. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 970701 5S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) APPEAL NO. 99-166 

HAL LEININGER, Appellant [Protesting issuance on October 8, 1999, 

vs. [to Thomas and Susan Bernard, permit 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (to comp-ete work 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [started under PA #8404649 and 

[extended under PA #8805005: remove 
[two walls, one parapet wall, anc: firewall) 
[at 1920 Golden Gate Avenue. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9921351. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






Items (9A) and (9B) shall be heard together 

(9A) APPEAL NO. 99-167 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE [Protesting issuance on October 18, 

GROWTH, Appellant [1999, to Sapient, permit to Alter a 

vs. [Building at 2300 Harrison Street. 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [APPLICATION NO. 9917425. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [FOR HEARING TODAY. 

1/6/00. 1:0(1 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 12, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(9B) 



APPEAL NO. 99-168 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE 
GROWTH, Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on October 18, 
[1999, to Sapient, permit to Alter a 
[Building (new office space and open 
[work areas; new finishes throughout) at 
[2300 Harrison Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9917426. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 99-175 



RONALD LIPPERT & PAMELA BROWN, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on October 26, 
[1999, to Margot F. Nassau, permit to 
[Alter a Building (remove kitchen and 
[bath at lower level; relocate laundry tub, 
[washer and dryer to original location) at 
[2421 Balboa Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9919672. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 99-159 



HERMAN & JANE ABELSON, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning 
[Administrator dated September 24, 
[1999 that the proposed screened off- 
[street parking space in front of 1970 
[Jackson Street is not permitted under 
[Planning Code Section 132(b) which 
[requires a 13-foot front setback, unless 
[a variance is sought and granted. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9918712. 
TODAY. 



(12) 



APPEAL NO. 99-194 



HENRICK JONES, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated November 19, 1999 that 
[the noncomplying (as to height) building 
[at 10 Presidio Avenue may not be 
[further expanded by the enclosure of the 
[portions of the structure over the RH-1 
[district 30 foot height limit at the front, 
[and 35 foot overall limit; height not being 
[a variable standard, no variance 
[application may be accepted to exceed 
[these limits. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(13) CLOSED SESSION : 

ITEM A : Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session. 

ITEM B : Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and San Francisco 
Administrative Code Section 67.10(b). 

Mid-term progress assessment. 

Goals/Objectives for Executive Secretary for Performance Management Program for FY 1999-2000. 

ITEM C : Board will reconvene in open session and vote whether or not to disclose any or all 
discussions held in closed session (S.F. Admin. Code Section 67.10(b)). 



A/4I/M iri-imnnt 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



JOHN E. MclNERNEY, III PRESIDENT 

ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to John E. Mclnemey, III, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to a!! Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during i 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 



i/ 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people anc 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisa 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Tasl 
Force: Rachel Arnstme O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Sai 
Francisco. CA 94102-4683. Office telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e-ma 
Rachel_ArnstineO'Hara@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from thi 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's website i 
www.ci.sf.ca.us. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individua 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that the 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.53 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pleas 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, \i 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco. California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. Public Library 
Government Infor. Center 
Larkin/Grove Sts 
Dept. 41 



> MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 

2. 

, SAN FRANCISCOBOARD OF APPEALS D0C UMENTS DEPT. 

x / sco ° WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 12. 2000 JAN 2 5 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President John E. Mclnemey, Vice President Arnold Chin, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, and Commissioner Allam El Qadah. 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary; Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief 
of Neighborhood Planning, Planning Department; and Laurence Komfield, Chief Building Inspector, 
Department of Building Inspection. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Alice Suet Yee Barkley, attorney, requested that the Board direct the Department of 
Building Inspection to enforce the decision with condition imposed on the permit holder in Appeal No. 98- 
212 on July 14, 1999 by the Board. 2. Susan Lowenberg in support of the request above suggested that 
all the work done without permits by the owner of 38 West Clay be ripped out. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS : 1. Vice President Arnold Chin asked that there be a moment of silence in memory of the 
two members of the San Francisco Police Department killed in the helicopter crash. 2. President John 
Mclnerney welcomed all to the Board's first meeting of the new millennium and century. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : Letter from Malin Giddings requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit 
Application No. 9921417 issued to Frank Lembi for repair of damaged partitions and installation of new 
lightweight partitions at the existing laundry room and fully sprinkled rear garage at 2677 Larkin Street. 

Date issued October 8, 1999 

Last day to appeal October 25, 1 999 

Request for jurisdiction November 1 2, 1 999 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 12, 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE President John E. 
Mclnerney. Afterwards, John Sanger, attorney for requestor, WITHDREW the Request for Jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported that his review of the case 
requested by the Board at the last meeting revealed that there are no other permits on file for this 
property and that the subject permit was suspended December 1, 1999 because it was issued in error. 
He said he intends to revoke the permit. 2. John Sanger, attorney for the requestor, withdrew the 
Request for Jurisdiction. 

ITEM B : Letter from Ahmad Mohazab of Tecta Associates requesting that the Board take jurisdiction 
over Variance Decision 99.613V, a denial by the Zoning Administrator of a parking variance at 1133 
Hayes Street. 

Date of variance decision December 2, 1 999 

Last day to appeal December 13, 1999 

Request for jurisdiction December 21, 1999 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Mclnerney the Board 1-4 to DENY the Request for Jurisdiction; 
4 votes being necessary, the motion FAILED. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the 
Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the Request for Jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Ahmad Mohazab explained why he had not filed the appeal in time and asked 
permission to file late. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM C : Letter from Frank Bacon, on behalf of the 3995 Alemany Boulevard Project Committee, 
Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 99-178 to 183. Hearing December 15, 1999. Upor 
motion by President Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioners Saunders absent) to UPHOLD the 
permits on CONDITION that the Panama alley be widened to 30', and that the 6-8 trees on Panama alley 
shall be retained, with FINDINGS as stated on the record by Vice President Chin. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Saunders 
abstaining) to DENY the Request for Rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Frank Bacon, attorney for the appellant committee, requested a rehearing based or 
several arguments set forth in his letter to the Board. 2. Steven Vettel, attorney for the permit holder 
opposed a rehearing for the reason that there was no new evidence and the Board had held a thorougl 
hearing in December. 



ITEM D : Letter from Jason S. Squire, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal 99-164. Hearinr 
December 15, 1999. Upon motion by Vice President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Saunde 
absent) to UPHOLD the permit at 1082 Pennsylvania Avenue on CONDITION that an additional 
setback be added to unit 406, and that unit 405 be revised to have a 45 degree sloped roof of fir 
retardant glass (or wire mesh glass) on its northerly side. 



! 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 1-3 (Commissioner Saunder 
abstaining) to GRANT the Request for Rehearing; 4 votes being necessary, the motion FAILED, an 
thus the Request for Rehearing was DENIED. 

7 1/21/00, 9:17 A 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 12, 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Jason S. Squire, appellant, requested the Board grant a rehearing to allow him time to 
present a sun study to the Board. 2. Steven Vettel, attorney for the permit holder, urged the Board to not 
grant a rehearing for lack of new timely evidence. 3. Sue Hestor on behalf of the appellant urged that the 
Planning Code protects sunlight and that the Board should grant a rehearing to protect appellant's 
sunlight. 



(4) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Police Department, the Board will proceed to a vote without 
testimony to lift the revocation. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal 
individually. The Department consented. 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 99-176 

GIUSEPPE SPINOSO, dba "FIZZ SUPPER CLUB", [Revocation on November 1, 1999, of 

Appellant [Place of Entertainment permit at 471 

vs. [Pine Street. 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [PERMIT NO. 0976. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Police 
Department on CONDITION that the appellant pay his permit fees and brings his receipt to the Police 
Permit Division located at the Hall of Justice (850 Bryant Street). 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 99-186 

JOEL LEMUS, Appellant [Revocation on November 4, 1999, of 

vs. [Tow Car Driver permit. 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [PERMIT NO. 0989. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Police 
Department on CONDITION that the appellant pay his permit fees and brings his receipt to the Police 
Permit Division located at the Hall of Justice (850 Bryant Street). 

SPEAKERS : None. 

Items (5A) and (5B) shall be heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 98-035 

VICTOR TWAL dba "BUDDIES", Appellant [Denial on February 13, 1998, of permit 

vs. [to Alter a Building (legalize 3' x 4' x 1 2'6" 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [awning and sign installed without 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [permit) at 498 Sanchez Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9723854. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 99-197 

MICHAEL CRAWFORD & TOM HANUS, [Denial on December 7, 1999, of permit 

dba "CHAT CAFE", Appellant [for 12 chairs on sidewalk at 498 

vs. [Sanchez Street. 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent [FOR HEARING TODAY. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISSAPROVAL 

z 1/21/00, 9:17 AM 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 12. 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE these matters to 
July 12,2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jeremy Paul accepted the continuance of the two appeals to July 12, 2000 on behalf of 
the appellants to allow time for legislation to be enacted that would allow the awning and sidewalk 
seating. 2. Commissioner Cullum requested that a letter be sent to the Department of Public Works 
asking for enforcement to be stayed on the sidewalk seating until a decision is rendered by the Board. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 99-137 

JAMILA CHAMPSI & FARAH CHAMPSI, Appellants [Protesting issuance on August 16, 1999, 

vs. [to Betty Jo Hardison, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (vertical and horizontal 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [additions) at 2931 Pierce Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9805281 S. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jeremy Paul, agent for the appellants, asked that the plans be revised to comply with 
the Codes, and argued that the proposed ridgeline is too high. 2. Betty Jo Hardison, permit holder, 
reported that the revised plans meet the Codes. Henry Shapiro, friend of the permit holder, said that view 
blockage was the real issue and that the plans have been corrected to the department's satisfaction. 3. 
Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning Department, said that plans now comply with 
the Code, which does not protect views. 4. Leslie Arnold, architect for permit holder, explained the 
revised plans. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 99-144 

ADIL & LORI WAKIL, ALVIN & GLADYS IACONO, [Protesting issuance on September 3, 

Appellants [1999, to James Lucey, permit to Erect a 

vs. [Building (three-story single-family 

DEPT. BUILIDNG INSPECTION, Respondent [dwelling) at 1993 - 14 th Avenue. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 970701 5S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with 
FINDINGS as stated into the record by Commissioner Cullum. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Dr. Akil Wakil explained that the appellants' issues with the plans and said that the 
revised building is still too big. 2. Matthew Francois, attorney for appellants, said the project was grossly 
out of proportion with the neighborhood. 3. Alice Suet Yee Barkley, attorney for permit holder, explained 
how the revised plans reduced the size of the building. 4. Frank Grimma of Radio Terrace spoke in 
support of appellants and asked that the house be set back. 5. John Peterson spoke in support of the 
appellants and explained the steepness of the lot and asked that the plans be revised further. 6. Lou 
Foccacia spoke in support of the appellants and explained that the plans are in conflict with the 
Residential Design Guidelines. 7. Joe O'Donoghue of the R.B.A. spoke in support of the permit holder 
and objected to the continuing opposition of the neighbors. 8. Ike Felzer said he felt it is wrong to oppose 
permits for new homes and spoke in support of the permit holder. 






1/21/00, 9:17 AN 



i 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 12. 2000 



(8) APPEAL NO. 99-166 

HAL LEININGER, Appellant [Protesting issuance on October 8, 1999, 

vs. [to Thomas and Susan Bernard, permit 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (to complete work 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [started under PA #8404649 and 

[extended under PA #8805005; remove 
[two walls, one parapet wall, and firewall) 
[at 1920 Golden Gate Avenue. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9921351. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to 
February 16, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : Thomas Bernard, permit holder, asked the Board for a continuance so that he may prepare 
a formal response to the appellant's arguments. 



Items (9A) and (9B) shall be heard together 

(9A) APPEAL NO. 99-167 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE [Protesting issuance on October 18, 

GROWTH, Appellant [1999, to Sapient, permit to Alter a 

vs. [Building at 2300 Harrison Street. 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [APPLICATION NO. 9917425. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9B) APPEAL NO. 99-168 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE [Protesting issuance on October 18, 

GROWTH, Appellant [1999, to Sapient, permit to Alter a 

vs. [Building (new office space and open 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [work areas; new finishes throughout) at 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [2300 Harrison Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9917426. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted to GRANT the permits with FINDINGS 
as stated into the record by Commissioner Cullum and Vice President Chin. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for the appellant, explained how the project failed to meet the 
Planning Code provisions for office conversions. 2. Paul Albritton, attorney for the permit holder, 
explained the nature of the permit holder's multimedia business and how the project meets the Planning 
Code. 3. Robert Herr, attorney for the property owners, explained the procedural history of the permits. 
4. Jim Gonzalez of the Information & Technology Coalition explained the 1992 multimedia legislation and 
the positive effect the industry has had on the City and the Mission District; he spoke in support of the 
permit holder. 5. Alice Suet Yee Barkley spoke in support of the permit holder and explained the IPZ 
program and how multi-media fits into it. 6. Robert J. McCarthy, attorney for the permit holder, explained 
the post-industrial revolution and how the multimedia industry benefits the City. 7. Gerald Green, 
Director, Planning Department, said the permits were consistent with the Zoning Administrator's 
determination. 

5 1/21/00, 9:17 AM 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 12. 2000 



(10) APPEAL NO. 99-175 

RONALD LIPPERT & PAMELA BROWN, Appellants [Protesting issuance on October 26, 

vs. [1999, to Margot F. Nassau, permit to 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Alter a Building (remove kitchen and 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [bath at lower level; relocate laundry tub, 

[washer and dryer to original location) at 

[2421 Balboa Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9919672. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Vice President 
Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 to CONTINUE this matter 
to July 19, 2000, and requested a report from the appellants in three months on the status of their 
apartment search. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Ronald Lippert, co-appellant, explained how difficult it is to find another apartment if 
evicted. 2. Pam Brown, wife of Mr. Lippert and co-appellant, explained their search for a home and work 
in other counties. 3. Harrison Nam, attorney for permit holder, explained his client's efforts to correct the 
violations of the Codes and to remove the illegal unit. 4. Joan Fosbery, daughter of permit holder, 
explained the deteriorated condition of the unit. 5. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, 
reported on the life' safety issues with the unit and how they can be resolved. 

(11) APPEAL NO. 99-159 

HERMAN & JANE ABELSON, Appellants [Determination by the Zoning 

vs. [Administrator dated September 24, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [1999 that the proposed screened off- 

[street parking space in front of 1970 
[Jackson Street is not permitted under 
[Planning Code Section 132(b) which 
[requires a 13-foot front setback, unless 
[a variance is sought and granted. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9918712. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to 
February 2, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Martin Fineman, attorney for appellants, explained the appeal, the nature of Dr. 
Abelson's disability, and asked the Board to approve the parking space under provisions of the Planning 
Code allowing averaging of front setbacks. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said 
that the department could now see a way to approve the parking space as a variance now that they knew 
of the disability involved. 3. Eddie Tsui, traffic engineer for the Department of Parking and Traffic, 
reported on his site visit and the policy of DPT regarding blue zones (handicapped parking spaces) in 
residential districts. 4. President John Mclnemey requested that DPT send an official who has the 
authority to approve a blue zone in front of the Abelson's house to the next meeting. 5. Joe O'Donoghue 
spoke in support of the appellants and asked the Board to approve what was requested based on the 
hardship to the appellant. 6. Jane Abelson, co-appellant, spoke on behalf of her husband and thanked 
the Board for the idea of a blue zone (handicapped parking space) but said it is not what her husband 
needs. 7. Gerald Green, Director of the Planning Department and acting Zoning Administrator, said that 
a variance application would be expedited if filed. 

6 1/21/00, 9:17 AM 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 12, 2000 



(12) APPEAL NO. 99-194 

HENRICK JONES, Appellant [Determination by the Zoning 

vs. [Administrator dated November 19, 1999 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [that the non-complying (as to height) 

[building at 10 Presidio Avenue may not 
[be further expanded by the enclosure of 
[the portions of the structure over the 
[RH-1 district 30 foot height limit at the 
[front, and 35 foot overall limit; height not 
[being a variable standard, no variance 
[application may be accepted to exceed 
[these limits. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Vice President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Zoning 
Administrator's Determination with FINDINGS as amended. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, asked the Board to approve the proposed alterations 
and offered draft findings for adoption by the Board in support of a decision. 2. Laurence Komfield, Chief 
Building Inspector, DBI, reported on the fire safety problems of the current construction and how the 
proposed alterations would correct them. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said 
that the Code allows the rebuilding of secondary egress up to current standards even in a non-complying 
structure. 

(13) CLOSED SESSION : 

ITEM A : Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session. 

ITEM B : Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and San Francisco 
Administrative Code Section 67.10(b). 

Mid-term progress assessment. 

Goals/Objectives for Executive Secretary for Performance Management Program for FY 1999-2000. 

ITEM C : Board will reconvene in open session and vote whether or not to disclose any or all 
discussions held in closed session (S.F. Admin. Code Section 67.10(b)). 

ACTION : The Board discussed this matter in open session. 

There being no further business, President Mclnerney adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. 





John E. Mclnerney, III, Prejwent 

n 




Robert H. FeldmSn, Executive Secretary 

1/21/00, 9:17 AM 



/•■ 






\oco 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 
^ ^ 

WEDNESDAYUANUARY 26, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL. ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS . 

(2) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(3) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS : 

REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF BOARD RULES : 

ITEM A : Request by Commissioner Cullum for the Board to suspend its rules and set aside its October 
13, 1999 decision not to grant a rehearing for Appeal No. 99-073 for the property at 470 25 th Avenue, 
owned by Hugo Villavicensio, and to consider again the Request for Rehearing filed by Raquel Fox, 
attorney for appellant/tenant Frank Daijo. This appeal was heard on July 14, 1999 when by a vote of 4-0 
the Board recused Vice President Chin from participating, and on Commissioner Cullum's motion to 
disapprove, the Board voted 3-1 (President Mclnerney dissenting), and the permit was upheld, four votes 
being necessary to disapprove a permit. DOCUMENTS DFPT 



(4) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND APPEAL PERIOD: 



JAN 2 5 20G0 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



ITEM A : Letter from Wael Qahhaz requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Taxicab Commission 
Resolution No. 74-99, a suspension of taxicab permit 50850 for 6 months commencing January 5, 2000, 
as well as the imposition of probation on said permit for a period of 2 years. 



Date of Taxicab Commission Decision 
Last day to appeal 
Request for jurisdiction 



December 16, 1999 
December 31, 1999 
January 11, 2000 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 99-126 



DONALD TRIERWEILER, Appellant 

vs. 
TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent 



[Revocation on August 1, 1999, of Taxi- 
[cab Medallion No. 654. 
[RESOLUTION NO. 33-99. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (6A) and (6B) shall be heard together 



(6A) 



APPEAL NO. 98-136 



ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 

[Demolish a Building at 407 Connecticut 

[Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9715365 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(6B) 



APPEAL NO. 98-137 



ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 
[Erect a Building (two dwelling units) at 
[407 Connecticut Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9715364. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JANUARY 26, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 99-035 



LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on November 12, 
[1998, to John and Evelyn Schiappaca- 
[sse, permit to Alter a Building (remove 
[walls to provide parking spaces and 
[remove daycare facility) at 2234-2236 
[Francisco Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9823286. 
[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARCH 18, 
[1999. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 99-156 



JONATHAN DOSKOW, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on September 20, 
[1999, to Lille Koski, permit to Alter a 
[Building (build new fence along side 
[property line) at 2309 Lincoln Way. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9919766. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 99-078 



ELLER MEDIA COMPANY, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning 
[Administrator dated May 3, 1999 
[requiring removal of the painted wall 
[sign at 465 - 1 0th Street because it was 
[discontinued for more than three years 
[and no new wall signs are permitted in 
[the SLR zoning district under Planning 
[Code Section 816. Permit Application 
[No. 9814260 was issued in error. 
[Appellant has 30 days to respond with a 
[program to correct this violation or this 
[matter will sent to the City Attorney for 
[abatement. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public convspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



1/20/00. 9:48 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



JOHN E. MclNERNEY, III PRESIDENT 

ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to John E. Mclnerney, III, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 



The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people anc 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Franciscc 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Tasl- 
Force: Rachel Arnstine O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Sar 
Francisco, CA 94102-4683. Office telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e-mai 
Rachel_ArnstineO'Hara@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from th€ 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's website a 
www.ci.sf.ca.us. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individual 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that the 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pleast 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, fa 
(415)703-0121. 







CiTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco. California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. Public Library 
Government Infor. Center 
Larkin/Grove Sts. 
Dept. 41 



^MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 

.SAN FRANCISCO^BOARD OF APPEALS D0CUM ENTS DEPT. 

oo WEDNESDAY JANUARY 26, 2000 EB " 9 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President John Mclnemey, Vice-President Arnold Chin, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner Sabrina Saunders. 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary; Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Chief of 
Neighborhood Planning, Planning Department; and Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, 
Department of Building Inspection. 

(1) ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS - 
ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to elect Vice-President Arnold 
Chin as the new President, and to elect Commissioner Sabrina Saunders as the new Vice-President. 

SPEAKERS : President Chin thanked the Board for its confidence in him and asked that Commissioner 
Mclnemey chair this meeting. 

(2) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(3) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS : 

SPEAKERS : 1. Commissioner Mclnemey announced that he expected to leave at 6:45 p.m. 

REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF BOARD RULES : 

ITEM A : Request by Commissioner Cullum for the Board to suspend its rules and set aside its October 
13, 1999 decision not to grant a rehearing for Appeal No. 99-073 for the property at 470 25 th Avenue, 
owned by Hugo Villavicensio, and to consider again the Request for Rehearing filed by Raquel Fox, 
attorney for appellant/tenant Frank Daijo. This appeal was heard on July 14, 1999 when by a vote of 4-0 
the Board recused Vice President Chin from participating, and on Commissioner Cullum's motion to 
disapprove, the Board voted 3-1 (President Mclnemey dissenting), and the permit was upheld, four votes 
being necessary to disapprove a permit. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 26, 2000 






ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE President Chin. 
Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney 
dissenting) to SUSPEND THE RULES and set aside its October 13, 1999 decision not to grant a 
rehearing for Appeal No. 99-073, thus giving the appellant/tenant in the case another 10 day period to file 
a Request for Rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jonathan Bornstein, attorney for permit holder, and Raquel Fox, attorney for appellant, 
both announced that they were present. There was no public testimony. 

(4) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : Letter from Wael Qahhaz requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Taxicab Commission 
Resolution No. 74-99, a suspension of taxicab permit 50850 for 6 months commencing January 5, 2000, 
as well as the imposition of probation on said permit for a period of 2 years. 



Date of Taxicab Commission Decision December 16, 1999 

Last day to appeal December 31 , 1 999 

Request for jurisdiction January 1 1 , 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney 
dissenting) to GRANT the Request for Jurisdiction, thus giving Mr. Qahhaz a new 15-day period to file his 
appeal. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Wael Qahhaz, requestor, said he hadn't filed on time because of a neck injury and a 
lack of appeal fee at the time. 2. Thomas Owen, Deputy City Attorney, opposed allowing a late filing of 
the appeal since there were not any good reasons for waiving the appeal period. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-126 

DONALD TRIERWEILER, Appellant [Revocation on August 1, 1999, of Taxi- 

vs. [cab Medallion No. 654. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 33-99. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Taxicab 
Commission's resolution revoking Taxicab Medallion No. 654. Afterwards, upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to ADOPT the findings prepared for this case by Thomas 
Owen, Deputy City Attorney. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Thomas Owen, Deputy City Attorney, explained that the appellant had no waybills and 
hadn't come close to following the rules for medallion holders, and that he was relying on the death of 
his father in 1997 to explain failure to comply with rules in 1998 and 1999. 2. John Stringer, attorney for 
appellant, argued that the appellant had acted without benefit of counsel and had not been aware of his 
ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) rights after he was injured. He admitted there had been some 
technical violations, but none that warranted revocation. 3. Ron Walter of the United Taxicab Workers 
urged the Board to uphold the revocation which would free a medallion for one of the 2000 people on 
the waiting list. 4. Ralph Jacobson, a medallion owner at Yellow Cab said he's known the appellant 

-> 2/1/00, 4:48 PM 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JANUARY 26, 2000 



thirteen years and he is sure the appellant was familiar with all the rules even before he obtained a 
medallion. 

Items (6A) and (6B) shall be heard together 

(6A) APPEAL NO. 98-136 

ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants [Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 

vs. [Demolish a Building at 407 Connecticut 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Street. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9715365 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to March 8, 2000 prior to the meeting. 
SPEAKERS : None 

(6B) APPEAL NO. 98-137 

ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants [Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 

vs. [Erect a Building (two dwelling units) at 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [407 Connecticut Street. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9715364. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to March 8, 2000 prior to the meeting. 

SPEAKERS: None. 



(7) APPEAL NO. 99-035 

LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant [Protesting issuance on November 12, 

vs. [1998, to John and Evelyn 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Schiappacasse, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (remove walls to provide 

[parking spaces and remove daycare 

[facility) at 2234-2236 Francisco Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9823286. 

[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARCH 18, 

[1999. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to 
March 8, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, reported that the appellant had 
begun to file a variance application and he expected it to be completed soon. 2. Andrew Zacks, attorney 
for permit holders, urged the Board to uphold the permit since no variance could be considered without 
the owner's permission and the property has been "Ellised" and the tenant is no longer a lawful tenant. 



2/1/00, 4:48 PM 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JANUARY 26, 2000 



(8) APPEAL NO. 99-156 

JONATHAN DOSKOW, Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 20, 

vs. [1999, to Lille Koski, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (build new fence along side 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [property line) at 2309 Lincoln Way. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9919766. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE President Chin. 
Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to GRANT the permit on 
CONDITION that the top 3 feet of the 8 foot fence be trellis/lattice work. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Audrey Montana, attorney for appellant, explained her client's opposition to the subject 
fence and showed photos. 2. Claire Pilcher, also an attorney for appellant, explained how the fence is a 
nuisance and a hazard to the safety of the tenants of the apartment whose window faces the fence. She 
said it was a spite fence maliciously installed and it serves no useful purpose. 3. Paul Koski, permit 
holder, explained the purpose of the fence and the wall is to protect his privacy from the tenant next door 
whose window is at the level of his yard, and that it was not a spite fence. He also said that he felt the 
window should have been covered over when the apartment was created so that the problems would not 
have arisen. 4. Mark Bordonaro, the tenant of the apartment, testified that there had been no vandalism 
or trespassing on the Koski's property. 5. Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, DBI, testified as to 
the Code provisions regarding property line windows. 6. Jonathan Doskow, appellant, reviewed the 
history of the apartment and the fence over the years, and the changing use of the yard and the 
malicious intent of the permit holder. 



(9) APPEAL NO. 99-078 

ELLER MEDIA COMPANY, Appellant [Determination by the Zoning 

vs. [Administrator dated May 3, 1999 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [requiring removal of the painted wall 

[sign at 465 - 10th Street because it was 
[discontinued for more than three years 
[and no new wall signs are permitted in 
[the SLR zoning district under Planning 
[Code Section 816. Permit Application 
[No. 9814260 was issued in error. 
[Appellant has 30 days to respond with a 
[program to correct this violation or this 
[matter will sent to the City Attorney for 
[abatement. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. 
Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 to OVERRULE the Zoning 
Administrator's Determination, and ALLOW the building permit applications to go forward on CONDITION 
that no more than 4 layers of ad print be placed on the sign at one time, and on CONDITION that 
appellant Eller Media purchase an insurance policy on behalf of Craig Rowland, the abutting property 
owner, with FINDINGS as stated into the record by Commissioner Cullum. 

- , 4 2/1/00, 4:48 PM 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JANUARY 26, 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the provisions of Planning 
Code Section 183 as they applied to the subject sign, a discontinued non-comforming use, which cannot 
be reestablished. 2. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the appellant sign company, said he was convinced the 
Zoning Administrator is wrong and that the permit was properly issued for the existing sign. 3. Craig 
Rowland, owner of the abutting property, urged the Board to uphold the department and described his 
problems with the sign over the years. 4. David Sweeney, an employee of the sign company, responded 
to a Board question about how the sign was constructed. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. 




Arnold Y. K. Chin, President 




Robert H. Feldman 
Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these proceedings can be obtained from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, 
(415)362-5991. 



• 5 



2/4/00, 9:53 AM 



Government Information Center 
S.F. Public Library 
Main Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 



.fig, 



e." 



dL* 



30 



a WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2000 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 7, 




I a/ do 



5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest tc 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respec 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing a 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, you: 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated tha 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to anothe 
time during the meeting. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
JAN 2 8 2000 



(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : Letter from John O'Rourke requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over determination b) 
the Zoning Administrator dated December 1, 1999, which stated that a variance application must be 
granted for lack of street frontage before Building Permit Applications 9912703 and 9912704 can be 
given final approval or disapproval. 

Determination issued December 1, 1999 

Last day to appeal December 16, 1999 

Request for jurisdiction January 12, 2000 

ITEM B : Letter from Susan Lum requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permi 
Application No. 010300043 issued to Stan Kwong to repair dry rot damage to existing roof deck at 223£ 
Jones Street. 

Permit issued January 3, 2000 

Last day to appeal January 18, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction January 25, 2000 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM C : Letter from Sue C. Hestor, attorney for San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth, appellant 
requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 99-167 and 99-168, 2300 Harrison Street. Hearing January 12. 
2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department anc 
GRANT the permits with FINDINGS as stated into the record by Commissioner Cullum and Vice 
President Chin. 

(4) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed tc 
a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as providea 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal 
individually. 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 99-201 

STEFAN GIUSTINO, Appellant [Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on 

vs. [December 21, 1999, for electrical work 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [done at 316 Valencia Street. 

[PERMIT NO. E204392. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY 2. 2000 - PAGE 2 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 99-202 

PETER H. RACK, Appellant [Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on 

vs. [December 23, 1999, for work done at 

DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [1201 Folsom Street. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9909991 . 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(5) APPEAL NO. 99-159 

HERMAN & JANE ABELSON, Appellants [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

vs. [istrator dated September 24, 1999 that 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [the proposed screened off-street 

[parking space in front of 1970 Jackson 
[Street is not permitted under Planning 
[Code Section 132(b) which requires a 
[13-foot front setback, unless a variance 
[is sought and granted. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9918712. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 99-195 

SENSORIA, LLC, dba "DNA LOUNGE," Appellant [Appeal of four of eighteen stipulations of 

vs. [the decision by Police Department, 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [dated November 22, 1999, to issue 

[three Dance Hall Keeper/After 
[Hours/Place of Entertainment permits at 
[375 -11 th Street. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 99-198 

2836 WASHINGTON STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC, [Denial on December 20, 1999, of permit 

Appellant [to Alter a Building (install new garage, 

vs. [remodel entry stairs; add new window 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on first floor; add exterior siding) at 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [2836 Washington Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9903695S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

Items (8A) and (8B) shall be heard together 

(8A) APPEAL NO. 98-055 

TUDOR HILL TENANTS ASSN., Appellant [Protesting issuance on March 24, 1998, 

vs. [to George Hoffberg, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (split into two buildings; new fire 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [walls and other code upgrades as 

[required per meeting and letter dated 

[January 22, 1996) at 1111-1133 Green 

[Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9802162. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8B) APPEAL NO. 98-056 

TUDOR HILL TENANTS ASSN., Appellant [Protesting issuance on March 24, 1998, 

vs. [to George Hoffberg, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (split existing building on one 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [lot into two buildings on two lots; new 

[fire walls) at 1111-1133 Green Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9802163. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9) APPEAL NO. 99-160 

RUTH L. KEADY, Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 30, 

vs. [1999, to Carlota M. Asturias, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (three-story single 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [family dwelling) at 57 Arbor Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9825583S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY 2, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 99-192 



SETH CHARNEY, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on November 15, 
[1999, to Yury Trubnikov, permit to Erect 
[a Building (eight live/work units) at 1025 
[Minna Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9801 703S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 99-193 



COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on November 15, 
[1999, to Sixth & Bryant Streets LLC, 
[permit to Erect a Building (24 live/work 
[units) at 317 Harriet Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9905630S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(12) 



APPEAL NO. 99-190 






TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated November 12, 1999 that 
[the proposed restaurant at 412 
[Broadway, "BoysToys", does not require 
[conditional use authorization from the 
[Planning Commission since the Police 
[Department does not deem it adult 
[entertainment, and by the previous 
[interpretation the size of the restaurant 
[use has not been abandoned and the 
[proposed restaurant is a principal 
[permitted use in the Broadway 
[Neighborhood Commercial District; also 
[requests disapproval of Planning 
[approval of Department of Public Health 
[restaurant permit. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(13) 



APPEAL NO. 99-191 



TOBY LEVY, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated November 15, 1999 that 
[Lot 30, Block 9794 (555 Birch Street) is 
[limited to construction of a one-family 
[house for lack of 1 16.4 square feet of lot 
[area in the RM-1 zoning district; and the 
[variance granted in 1979 no longer 
[controls the density permitted on this lot. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



3 ie 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public con-espondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 






J. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE-PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denia 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or pers 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for th 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minut 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed sev 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to thr 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the d; 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer a 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please ( 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeai/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Boa 
should be addressed to John E. Mclnerney, III, President, and be received at the Board office, 16 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the schedu 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comme 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of t 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Boara 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff z 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or i 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in t 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant put 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Cathef 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possiti 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader dut 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of needi 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or rels 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In oi 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remim 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the Cit 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible M 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Ma 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI access ) 
services call 923-6142. 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across f 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be availabh 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the pu. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Franc 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance 1 
Force: Rachel Arnstine O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, 
Francisco, CA 94102-4683. Office telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e- 
Rachel_ArnstineO'Hara@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's websit 
www.ci.sf.ca.us. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individ 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16. 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pie 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/ 
(415)703-0121. 



i 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415) 575-6880 



S F Public Library 
Government Infor. Center 
Larkin/Grove Sts. 
Dept. 41 






MINUTES OF THE 



/ 



REGULA R ME ETiNG OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OE APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 2. 2000 



fENTs DEPT, 
oo ..^.^— .^ ~ FEB 2 2 m 

5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL. ROOM 416 SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, 
Allam El Qadah and John Mclnerney. 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary; Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief 
of Neighborhood Planning, Planning Department; and Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, 
Department of Building Inspection. 

Vangie M. Gonegal, substituting for the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to 
testify during the meeting. 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except a°enda items. With res n ect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during .the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKER : Lawrence Alioto, attorney for appellant Lucinda Hampton in Appeal No. 99-035 apologized 
for not appearing at the hearing January 20, 2000 for lack of notice, and reported that he was defending 
an unlawful detainer action against his client. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKER : President Chin welcomed the audience to the meeting and explained how the Board tries to 
be fair in its decisions. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : Letter from John O'Rourke requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over determination by 
the Zoning Administrator dated December 1, 1999, which stated that a variance application must be 
granted for lack of street frontage before Building Permit Applications 9912703 and 9912704 can be 
given final approval or disapproval. 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 2. 2000 



Determination issued December 1, 1999 

Last day to appeal December 16, 1999 

Request for jurisdiction January 1 2, 2000 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnemey absent) to GRANT jurisdiction. Mr. O'Rourke has 15 days to file an appeal. 

SPEAKERS : 1. John O'Rourke explained that he had not received the department's letter to appeal the 
determination and asked for permission to file a late appeal. 2. Larry Badiner, representing the Planning 
Department did not object. 

ITEM B : Letter from Susan Lum requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit 
Application No. 010300043 issued to Stan Kwong to repair dry rot damage to existing roof deck at 2238 
Jones Street. 

Permit issued January 3, 2000 

Last day to appeal January 1 8, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction January 25, 2000 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner 
El Qadah dissented, Commissioner Mclnemey absent) to grant jurisdiction. Four votes are needed and 
the motion failed. Then upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners El 
Qadah and Mclnemey dissented) to grant jurisdiction. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The 
request is DENIED. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Susan Lum said she had not been given correct information about filing an appeal from 
the building inspector. 2. Ted Bayer, attorney for permit holder Stan Kwong, explained the history of the 
renovation and of the roof deck permit, saying the project is now complete and all signed off except for 
the deck. 



REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM C : Letter from Sue C. Hestor, attorney for San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth, appellant, 
requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 99-167 and 99-168, 2300 Harrison Street. Hearing January 12, 
2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and 
GRANT the permits with FINDINGS as stated into the record by Commissioner Cullum and Vice 
President Chin. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnemey absent) to DENY the request for rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, challenged the findings adopted by the Board, some 
she said were silly and not supported by the record. 2. Paul Albritton, attorney for permit holder Sapient, 
defended the findings and asked that no rehearing be granted since no new evidence was offered. 3. 
Robert Herr, attorney for the building owner SKS Harrison, also requested that the request for rehearing 
be denied for lack of new evidence being offered by the appellant, and that he felt the Board's decision 
was within its power to interpret the Planning Code. 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 2. 2000 

(4) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to 
a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal 
individually. The Department did noi consent for the following two appeals. 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 99-201 

STEFANO GIUSTINO, Appellant [Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on 

vs. [December 21, 1999, for electrical work 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [done at 316 Valencia Street. 

[PERMIT NO. E204392. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnemey absent) to UPHOLD the department and SUSTAIN the penalty. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Stefano Giustino, appellant, said that he had converted plugs from 220 volts to 110 
volts in the laundry room without permit, a very minor infraction and that he had finally hired a licensed 
contractor. 2. Laurence Komfield, Chief Building Inspector, described the hazards created by the 
electrical work performed without permit, the enforcement action of the department, and the lack of 
response of the appellant. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 99-202 

PETER H. RACK, Appellant [Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on 

vs. [December 23, 1999, for work done at 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [1201 Folsom Street. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9909991 . 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnemey absent) to OVERRULE the department with the CONDITION that the penalty be reduced to 
two times the regular fee of $744.58 for a total of $1 ,489.16. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Peter Rack, appellant, said that the inspector did not understand the work being done. 
2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector explained the complication of the permit process in this 
matter. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-159 

HERMAN & JANE ABELSON, Appellants [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

vs. [istrator dated September 24, 1999 that 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [the proposed screened off-street 

[parking space in front of 1970 Jackson 
[Street is not permitted under Planning 
[Code Section 132(b) which requires a 
[13-foot front setback, unless a variance 
[is sought and granted. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9918712. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 2. 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Mclnerney 
absent) to CONTINUE the matter to February 16, 2000 for complete drawings. 

SPEAKERS : Frank Bergamaschi, architect for the appellants, reported that his clients' variance hearing 
has been scheduled for February 8, 2000 and asked that their appeal be rescheduled to February 16 to 
allow for the variance decision to issue, possibly making this appeal moot. 

Commissioner Mclnerney arrived at 6:50 p.m. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 99-195 

SENSORIA, LLC, dba "DNA LOUNGE," Appellant [Appeal of four of eighteen stipulations of 

vs. [the decision by Police Department, 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [dated November 22, 1999, to issue 

[three Dance Hall Keeper/After 

[Hours/Place of Entertainment permits at 

[375 -11 th Street. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the 
department with the CONDITION that stipulations 12, 13, and 14 are deleted relating to hours of 
operation and in- and out- privileges. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sergeant William Coggan of the SFPD Legal Office explained the stipulations on the 
club's permit and the four being appealed. 2. Officer Edward Anzore, the noise abatement officer 
explained the use of a limiter in a nightclub. 3. Officer Rose Meyer described closing times at other 
clubs. 4. Jamie Zawinski, appellant, described the outreach he and his partner have made to reach 
neighbors and asked the Board to preserve the artistic culture of the City by granting their appeal. 5. 
Barry Synoground, co-appellant, said that private security could patrol and keep noise down around the 
club. IN SUPPORT OF DEPARTMENT: 6. Laslo Puskas, described the dangers at night in the area 
and said he wants a decent respectable neighborhood. 7. Jim Meko said the Bay Guardian had filled 
the room with supporters of the DNA Lounge but had failed to write about the new owner's lack of 
experience operating a club. He thought a trial period should be required for all night operation two days 
a week as offered by the Police. 8. Belinda Head said she supports the appellant's purchase of the club 
but not the 24-7 schedule because she needs to sleep at night. 9. Pearl Ong described the old frame 
building she lives in and how it is different from new soundproofed lofts, as well as her problems with the 
Holy Cow. 8. Ron Viner said he lives 25 feet from the Holy Cow and there have been many complaints 
about the Holy Cow over the years. He hears the screaming and cheering late at night, and he said the 
limiter worked there for a while but then the bass bothered him again. 10. George Miller said he has 
lived in the City 40 years and has spent more time in bars than anyone else. The problem is noise and 
he listed the arrests, citations, convictions, and judgments regarding clubs. 11. Peter Glikshtem said the 
most important thing was that businesses build relationships with area residents. FOR THE 
APPELLANT: 12. Bill Herrmann, owner of the Holy Cow, supported the appellant and opposed 
restrictive conditions that tend to sterilize the City. He thought the DNA open all night will improve the 
social life of the City. 13. Eric Duecy of the Late Night Coalition feels the club open at night is an asset 
not a liability in the neighborhood, which increases safety in this industrial area. 14. Joe O'Donoghue ol 
the Residential Builders Association compared the City to Ireland where clubs are open until 4:00 a.m. 
and asked the Board to give the appellant a chance. 15. Kenneth Kelly lives on 11 th Street and said ii 
was a vibrant friendly area. He said the parties at DNA were very cool and did not disturb him. "Let the 
DNA be the DNA." 16. Carol Keiter said she lives within two blocks of the club and that a 2:00 a.m. 
curfew was not needed. 17. Tarin Towers said the DNA was one of the few remaining venues for live 
music and DJ's, which also presents poetry and has a bar. 18. Rob Schneider, seller of the club to the 

4 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 2. 2000 



appellant, asked the Board to grant the appeal so that the City does not become a second-class city. 
John Schneider, partner of Rob, said this was a unique opportunity for the Board in fairness to allow the 
club to be operated as it has been and he said he thought appellant can make it work as Mr. Zawinski 
has been incredibly successful in the internet business. 19. Starchild said he was a member of the Late 
Night Coalition and that the Board should support youth culture. Most Police complaints were not 
generated by the clubs or under their control. 20. Lesley Ayres said she is 46 years old and likes to 
dance late at night and that she is on the steering committee of the coalition. She thought that 
businesses can coexist with the area if they cooperate. 21. Michael Singsen has lived next door to the 
DNA five years and that the Board's duty was to override the Police. He said there was no evidence, just 
speculation, that appellant would cause problems. 22. Mr. Synoground asked for a show of hands of 
those in support of the appeal and approximately 90 hands went up. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 99-198 

2836 WASHINGTON STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC, [Denial on December 20, 1999, of permit 

Appellant [to Alter a Building (install new garage; 

vs. [remodel entry stairs; add new window 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on first floor; add exterior siding) at 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [2836 Washington Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9903695S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE 
the matter to March 15, 2000 for complete drawings. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner for Planning Commission explained why the Commission had denied the 
application as inappropriate. 2. Carlos Alvarez, attorney for appellant explained that his client would 
make revisions to the plans to make them acceptable, including changing the recessed door. IN 
SUPPORT OF DEPARTMENT: 3. Ian Berke for the Pacific Heights Residents Association described 
the serial permit strategy used by the appellant to circumvent the Code. 4. Alexander Seidel asked the 
Board to hold to the standards other meet in this case and described the detriment to the neighborhood 
and serious deficiencies of the proposal. 5. Joe O'Donoghue agreed with Mr. Seidel and asked the 
Board to hold to its standards and uphold the denial. 6. Laurence Kornfield described the garage ceiling 
height standards. 

Items (8A) and (8B) were heard together 

(8A) APPEAL NO. 98-055 

TUDOR HILL TENANTS ASSN., Appellant [Protesting issuance on March 24, 1998, 

vs. [to George Hoffberg, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (split into two buildings; new fire 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [walls and other code upgrades as 

[required per meeting and letter dated 

[January 22, 1996) at 1111-1133 Green 

[Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9802162. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 2. 2000 

(8B) APPEAL NO. 98-056 

TUDOR HILL TENANTS ASSN., Appellant [Protesting issuance on March 24, 1998, 

vs. [to George Hoffberg, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (split existing building on one 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [lot into two buildings on two lots; new 

[fire walls) at 1111-1133 Green Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9802163. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Mclnerney 
absent) to CONTINUE the matter to December 6, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : George Hoffberg, permit holder requested the two appeals be rescheduled to December 6, 
2000 because of on-going litigation between the parties. 

(9) APPEAL NO. 99-160 

RUTH L. KEADY, Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 30, 

vs. [1999, to Carlota M. Asturias, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (three-story single 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [family dwelling) at 57 Arbor Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9825583S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD 
the department and GRANT the permit with findings by the Planning Department. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Serge Holtzman, attorney for appellant, described the many letters from neighbors 
supporting the appeal and opposing the project, which he said was not in character with the area. 2. 
Alice Barkley, attorney for permit holder, described her analysis of the project in light of the Residential 
Design Guidelines which she felt was met here, in this diverse neighborhood. FOR THE APPELLANT: 
3. Sheila Cummings said it was important to view the site from Poppy Lane, where the project will 
appear large. 4. Peter Kessler showed photos and described the proposed house as way out of 
character and scale with the area. 5. Garry Nicol, coordinator of the block watch, said the Planning 
Department has been unreasonable in approving the design. He suggested the house be set into an 
excavation to reduce its height and mass. FOR THE PERMIT HOLDER: 6. Joe O'Donoghue said the 
family building the house had a long history of service to the City and was building because of their family 
needs. 

(10) APPEAL NO. 99-192 

SETH CHARNEY, Appellant [Protesting issuance on November 15, 

vs. [1999, to Yury Trubnikov, permit to Erect 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (eight live/work units) at 1025 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Minna Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9801 703S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE 
the matter to March 15, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Seth Charney, appellant, described the affect of the proposal on the light to his tenants' 
rear yard and compared project to New York tenements banned there in the 1880's. 2. Sue Hestor, 

6 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 2. 2000 

attorney for appellant, described how the plans were in violation of mezzanine standards and complained 
that she had not been served with copies of the permit holder's response and plans. 3. Yury Trubnikov 
described the project and revisions made to accommodate neighbors at direction of Planning. 4. 
Edward Navarro spoke in support of the project and said the present vacant lot attracted dogs and drug 
dealers. 5. Michael Ravkin said there were no grounds for the appeal and that the project meets all 
Code requirements. 6. Laurence Kornfield discussed the mezzanine issue and the fire escapes required 
by Plan Check after the Planning Commission approval. 7. Larry Badiner, Planning Department 
described the side setbacks required by the Planning Commission. 

(11) APPEAL NO. 99-193 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [Protesting issuance on November 15, 
vs. [1999, to Sixth & Bryant Streets LLC, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [permit to Erect a Building (24 live/work 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [units) at 317 Harriet Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9905630S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to RECUSE Commissioner 
Mclnerney, who then left the room before any testimony was taken. Then after discussion, upon motion 
by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit 
with findings. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, opposed the project because the area near the Hall 
of Justice was sensitive and the parking lot to be lost was a sore blow for those on jury duty at the Hall. 
2. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, said that the neighbors supported the project and that the 
Commission approved this project since it was in the pipeline when the interim controls on live/work units 
were enacted. FOR THE PROJECT: Joe O'Donoghue said the loss of parking lot argument was a new 
one and that there was no real support for it. 6. Larry Badiner for the Planning Commission said that 
parking is a serious problem but that it was for the City to solve, not private property owners. 

Commissioner Mclnerney left the room at 1 1 :00 p.m.; this matter was the last item on calendar. 

(12) APPEAL NO. 99-190 

TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS, Appellant [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

vs. [istrator dated November 12, 1999 that 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [the proposed restaurant at 412 

[Broadway, "BoysToys", does not require 
[conditional use authorization from the 
[Planning Commission since the Police 
[Department does not deem it adult 
[entertainment, and by the previous 
[interpretation the size of the restaurant 
[use has not been abandoned and the 
[proposed restaurant is a principal 
[permitted use in the Broadway 
[Neighborhood Commercial District; also 
[requests disapproval of Planning 
[approval of Department of Public Health 
[restaurant permit. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 2. 2000 



ACTION : After discussion, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Mclnerney absent) to CONTINUE the 
matter to March 8, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1 . Walter Wong for the subject restaurant requested to reschedule to March 29. 2. Aaron 
Peskin, appellant, said March 29 was no good and accepted March 8, 2000. 

(13) APPEAL NO. 99-191 

TOBY LEVY, Appellant [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

vs. [istrator dated November 15, 1999 that 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Lot 30, Block 9794 (555 Birch Street) is 

[limited to construction of a one-family 
[house for lack of 1 16.4 square feet of lot 
[area in the RM-1 zoning district; and the 
[variance granted in 1979 no longer 
[controls the density permitted on this lot. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to 
OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator with findings and allow a two-family house to be built on the 
subject lot as requested by the appellant. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner explained the Zoning Administrator's position limiting development of the 
lot split and said Mr. Passmore had always accepted that lot would be for a two-family house. FOR THE 
APPELLANT: 2. Alice Barkiey cautioned the Board not to interfere with a proper variance granted with 
no condition regarding time limits for implementation. 3. Bernard Katzman supported the appeal and 
said the shortage of housing in the City was a strong argument to allow two units on this lot. 

There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 1 1 :25 p.m. 



ys 

s 



L^ 



'^~~e~/> 




Arnold-Chin, President 

Jo**- 

Robert H. Feldman 
Executive Secretary 

Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415}j 
362-5991. 



8 



V 



oo 



% toe«l ( 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

* * DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



WEDNESDAY^FEBRUARY 972000^ 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 



FEB h 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 



(3) 



APPEAL NO. 99-203 



ARTHUR & COLLEEN GIOVARA, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination dated December 9, 1999 
[by the Zoning Administrator that upon 
[the termination of St. Anthony 
[Foundation's lease (currently scheduled 
[for July 13, 2000) and the approval of a 
[new use for the property at 1055 and 
[1065-75 Pine Street, the Notice of 
[Special Restrictions, recorded June 14, 
[1982, restricting use to elderly housing 
[units for women, will be released by the 
[Planning Department. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (4A) and (4B) shall be heard together 



(4A) 



APPEAL NO. 98-052 



WILFREDO MENDOZA, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on March 11, 1998, 
[to Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a 
[Building (upgrade electrical wiring, 
[replace window, install skylight, remodel 
[kitchen, insulate walls where accessible) 
[at 3647 - 23 rd Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9804149. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(4B) 



APPEAL NO. 98-127 



WILFREDO MENDOZA, et al., Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on July 1, 1998, to 
[Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a Building 
[(remove interior waiis to convert two unit 
[building to single family dwelling) at 
[3647 - 23 rd Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9810383. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 99-112 



WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 
[that the laundromat business at 3647-49 
[- 23rd Street is limited by Planning Code 
[Sections 182, 710.40 and 790.102(e) to 
[serve only the immediate neighborhood 
[with all washing and cleaning done 
[on-site and with all windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY 9, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(6) APPEAL NO. 99-158 

KATHLEEN HOWELL, Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 24, 

vs. [1999, to Henry I. Prien, permit to Alter a 

DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (remove illegal unit in north 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [garage) at 2140 Pacific Avenue. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9912615. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 99-199 

TONY M. LO GIUDICE, Appellant [Protesting issuance on December 8, 

vs. [1999, to Rung Guo, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (34'-4" rear horizontal addition) 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [at 438 Holyoke Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907598S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8) APPEAL NO .V99-1 96 

LAURA ARIAS, Appellant [Decision by the Zoning Administrator 

vs. [dated December 2, 1999, denying a 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [front yard variance (construction of a 

[solarium at the roof of the garage which 
[exists in the required 15' front setback) 
[at 380 Laidley Street. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.497V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9) APPEAL NO. 99-188 

SAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK, Appellant [Protesting issuance on November 13, 

vs. [1999, to Brendan Quinlan, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDiNG INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units) at 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APRPOVAL [1 000 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9825933S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public conespondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case fiies, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Rachel Arnstine O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4683, telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e-mail 
Rachel_ArnstineO'Hara@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 






i iw i_rwui u i_,a\_.clji nurnuH iihhi^ wunn rocriort 



30 



/<?/<9o 



MINUTES OF THE 
^ 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 9. 2000 

5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL. ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice-President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John Mclnemey, III. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning 
Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and 
Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary, for the Board. 

(1 ) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Alice Barkley reported to the Board that the permit holders in Appeal No. 98-212 for the 
property at 38 West Clay Street have not yet complied with the conditions imposed by the Board last 
summer and asked that the Board see that they were. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, 
DBI, reported that he has attempted to reach the attorney for the permit holders without success and said 
he will report next week to the Board on the enforcement activity. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS : President Chin thanked Commissioner Mclnerney for his efforts last year as Board 
President and presented him with a plaque from the Board in appreciation. 

(3) APPEAL NO. 99-203 

ARTHUR & COLLEEN GIOVARA, Appellants [Determination dated December 9, 1999 

vs. [by the Zoning Administrator that upon 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [the termination of St. Anthony 

[Foundation's lease (currently scheduled 

r\r\m ik/icmtc hedt f for Ju| y 13 - 200 °) and the a PP roval of a 

UUOUIVIEN l C5 Utir I , rn ew use for the property at 1055 and 

[1065-75 Pine Street, the Notice of 
FEB 2 4 2000 [Special Restrictions, recorded June 14, 

[1982, restricting use to elderly housing 
SAN FRANCISCO [units for women, will be released by the 

PUBLIC LIBRARY [Planning Department. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 9. 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRRULE the Zoning 
Administrator's determination. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained that the department had 
changed its position and now is willing to remove the Notice of Special Restrictions from the land records. 

Items (4A) and (4B) shall be heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 98-052 

WILFREDO MENDOZA, Appellant [Protesting issuance on March 11, 1998, 

vs. [to Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (upgrade electrical wiring, 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [replace window, install skylight, remodel 

[kitchen, insulate walls where accessible) 

[at 3647 - 23 rd Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9804149. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to 
February 16, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary, reported that that he had a conference call 
with Alex Weyand, attorney for Mr. Luk, and with Raquel Fox, attorney for the Mendozas, at 4 p.m. and 
that Mr. Weyand had requested the three appeals be put over one week because he has just come down 
with the flu. Ms. Fox agreed to this request. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 98-127 

WILFREDO MENDOZA, et al., Appellants [Protesting issuance on July 1, 1998, to 

vs. [Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a Building 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [(remove interior walls to convert two unit 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [building to single family dwelling) at 

[3647 - 23 rd Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9810383. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to 
February 16, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary, reported that that he had a conference call 
with Alex Weyand, attorney for Mr. Luk, and with Raquel Fox, attorney for the Mendozas, at 4 p.m. and 
that Mr. Weyand had requested the three appeals be put over one week because he has just come down 
with the flu. Ms. Fox agreed to this request. 



iw i_rwui »_• uA^rjui <-jv ir-ri ii i^« iii—i I is; wwirn rocnflM 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 9. 2000 



(5) APPEAL NO. 99-112 

WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants [Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 

vs. [istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [that the laundromat business at 3647-49 

[- 23rd Street is limited by Planning Code 
[Sections 182, 710.40 and 790.102(e) to 
[serve only the immediate neighborhood 
[with all washing and cleaning done 
[on-site and with all windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to 
February 16, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary, reported that that he had a conference call 
with Alex Weyand, attorney for Mr. Luk, and with Raquel Fox, attorney for the Mendozas, at 4 p.m. and 
that Mr. Weyand had requested the three appeals be put over one week because he has just come down 
with the flu. Ms. Fox agreed to this request. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 99-158 

KATHLEEN HOWELL, Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 24, 

vs. [1999, to Henry I. Prien, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (remove illegal unit in north 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [garage) at 2140 Pacific Avenue. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9912615. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the 
Department of Building Inspection and DENY the permit on CONDITION that the unit be occupied only by 
the appellant, on CONDITION that the life & fire safety violations be corrected, and on further 
CONDITION that the unit be removed altogether when the appellant vacates the premises. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Laurence Komfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported a site visit made the day of 
the hearing and his observations of the subject unit, which is less than the required minimum of 144 
square feet in area. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, described the support the appellant has 
received from other tenants and asked the Board to legalize the unit which is uniquely suited to the 
appellant's lifestyle as a flight attendant. 3. Nubar Tashjian, attorney for permit holder, asked that the 
Board at least allow the tenant to remain, as she is a good tenant and often not there. He said if she is 
able to stay until she no longer needs it, that the City could take up the matter again. 4. Larry Badiner, 
Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that he had approved the permit for removal of the unit but that 
he has not done any research as to the legality of the unit. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 99-199 

TONY M. LO GIUDICE, Appellant [Protesting issuance on December 8, 

vs. [1999, to Rung Guo, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (34'-4" rear horizontal addition) 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [at 438 Holyoke Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907598S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 9. 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Vice-President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit on 
CONDITION that the rear yard extension be reduced by 5 feet, to 29 feet 4 inches. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner. Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that some revisions have been 
made to make the project more acceptable to the neighbors, but he welcomed a further reduction in the 
length of the addition. 2. Ronald Parshall, agent for the appellant, asked those in support of the appeal to 
stand and ten people in the audience rose; he said that he was not notified of the discretionary review 
hearing and that the minor revisions made to the plans would not have a significant effect on the 
neighbor affected by sunlight blockage; he asked the Board to correct the mistake made by Planning in 
approving this project. 3. Walter Wong, agent for permit holder, said that no neighbor had asked for 
discretionary review and that the permit was not issued in error, but was proper; he also said that cutting 
off more than 5 feet off the addition would create a hardship for the permit holder. 4. Patrice Fambrini, 
agent for permit holder, described the support for the permit holder from some neighbors, including a 
retraction of opposition by one. 5. Betty Parshall, in support of appellant, questioned the process that 
had approved the permit. 6. Alice Barkley, in support of permit holder, said it was difficult for a family with 
children to live in houses of 38 feet in length as are the two adjacent homes; the project allows a 40 foot 
rear yard back to back with another 40 foot rear yard, at total of 80 feet which is like the width of Harrison 
Street at 82 feet between the buildings. 

(8) APPEAL NO. V99-1 96 

LAURA ARIAS, Appellant [Decision by the Zoning Administrator 

vs. [dated December 2, 1999, denying a 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [front yard variance (construction of a 

[solarium at the roof of the garage which 
[exists in the required 15' front setback) 
[at 380 Laidley Street. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.497V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning 
Administrator and DENY the variance. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained how the five 
requirements for a variance had not been met. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, explained that the 
proposed solarium was needed to cure the leaking roof deck on which it is proposed to be built, and he 
described the diversity of the frontages and facades on Laidley Street. 3. Timothy Lewis, in support of 
appellant, explained that he lives across the street and supports the project as an improvement in the 
looks of the building. 



(9) APPEAL NO. 99-188 

SAN FRANCISCO FOOD BANK, Appellant [Protesting issuance on November 13, 

vs. [1999, to Brendan Quinlan, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units) at 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APRPOVAL [1000 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9825933S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney, 
who left the hearing room at 7:16 p.m. After testimony, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the 






.w t^wMi v^ v,nuv,ui auci iu«3 ntriiiN ux/irn rpQnerr 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 9. 2000 



Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissenting) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the Notice 
of Special Restrictions have a 20 point bold type face and requirement for printing of initials in certain 
areas concerning assumption of risk, and on further CONDITION that the Notice of Special Restrictions 
be filed with the Police and Health Departments, with FINDINGS as adopted by the Planning Commission 
during its Discretionary Review hearing; 4 votes being necessary to impose conditions on a permit, and 3 
votes being necessary to adopt findings, the permit is GRANTED with NO CONDITIONS, with FINDINGS 
as adopted by the Planning Commission during its Discretionary Review hearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jose Allen, attorney for appellant, explained the Food Bank's concerns about the 
proposed live-work building next door. He described the charities which benefit from the Food Bank 
program and the bad odors created from their produce dumpster which will irritate occupants of the units 
being created, and the costs that will be incurred by the Food Bank defending itself and the threat to the 
many beneficiaries of the Food Bank posed by such complaints. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood 
Planning, PD, urged support for the project which the Planning Commission would not take under 
Discretionary Review after hearing the Food Bank's testimony; he also explained that this a pipeline 
project which will be a buffer between the Food Bank and its surrounding residential neighbors. 3. James 
Reuben, attorney for permit holder, said that the permit was applied for before the Industrial Protection 
Zones (IPZ) were created in 1999; he also said that the lot had been vacant for four years before his 
client bought it; he also described the thoroughness of the Notice of Special Restrictions that will be filed 
and offered to revise it to meet the Board's usual standards. 4. Mary Belknap, Operations Director for 
Children and Family Services at Catholic Charities, explained her three arguments against the project: a) 
bank will need room to grow, b) problems with new occupants next door will drain their limited resources, 
and c) her group joins all the others in opposing this project in the IPZ. 5. Chris Moore explained how his 
group relies on the Bank for food for its tenants, including disabled, seniors, the terminally ill, a population 
that is growing. 6. Gail Priestly of St. Anthony's Foundation said her group received $1.5 million worth of 
food from the Bank and that these two uses were not a good match since the live-work units will generate 
complaints. 7. Sandra Vanderpool of Catholic Charities residential program said she has gotten food for 
ten years from the Bank to feed 50 young people and others in the program and that complaints about 
the Bank are guaranteed no matter how good the NSR is. 8. Reverend Harry Chuck, Executive Director 
of Cameron House, said the project will severely impact the Bank and food for many families will be 
jeopardized from the only facility of its kind in the City. 9. Major Robin Hu of the Salvation Army said the 
Bank has distributed 12 million tons of food to the needy and asked the Board to be compassionate. 10. 
Daniel Lyon said he owns property near the Food Bank, that they are not bad neighbors, and that more 
residential units will be good for the neighborhood. 11. Mai Rogers showed pictures of supermarkets in 
the Sunset with dumpsters along side and said that the Bank is like a supermarket and not remarkable 
nor incompatible with live-work units. 12. Redmond Lyons said he was happy that the Bank went in and 
that their trucks were no problem for the area; he also said that he did a similar building on Illinois near 
the cement works and that there hasn't been any problems there. 13. Mack Burton said he lives on 
Potrero Hill and it is a shame to see people pick up free food; he also feels it is time for people to get jobs 
and off welfare, and that 50 people will be employed by this project. 14. Randy Allison said he lives 
nearby and said the subject lot was a junkyard for several years and now will finally look good with a live- 
work building on it. 15. Alice Barkley, attorney for adjacent property owner John Protouty, described the 
interim controls, the negative declaration done for the controls and that the City is on target for approving 
about 500 live-work units a year as originally planned for. 16. Joe O'Donoghue of the Residential 
Builders Association explained that his group had submitted a brief in support of this project and he 
objected to being demonized. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 9. 2000 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m. 




Arnold Chin, President 




aO*- 



Ro! 

Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 



^ubo uo. UBU uoiui iiauiS^Aog 






"A i 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 z 

WEDNESDAY^FEBRUARY 16, 2000^ 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 
DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . DOCUMENTS DFPT 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : FEB \ \ 20Q0 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD ; SA N FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRAF 
ITEM A : Letter from Lynn Axelrod, attorney for Victor and Linda Vitlin, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9702332S, issued to Ed Tanser to erect a 200-unit 
(residential and live/work) building at 855 Folsom Street. 

Date issued December 23, 1999 

Last day to appeal January 7, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction February 3, 2000 

SECOND REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM B : Letter from Raquel Fox, attorney for Frank Daijo, appellant requesting a second rehearing of 
Appeal No. 99-073, 470 - 25 th Avenue. Hearing July 14, 1999. Upon motion by President Mclnerney, 
the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Vice President Chin because of a conflict of interest. Then after 
testimony, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (President Mclnerney dissented) 
to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit. Request for rehearing October 13, 1999. Upon 
motion by President Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to RECUSE Vice President Chin because of conflict 
of interest. Then upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (President Mclnerney 
dissented) to grant the request for rehearing. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The request 
was DENIED Notice of Decision and Order released October 18, 1999. Request for suspension of rules 
January 26, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE President 
Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney 
dissenting) to SUSPEND THE RULES and set aside its October 13, 1999 decision denying the request 
for rehearing, thus giving the appellant another 10-day period to file a request for rehearing. 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM C : Letter from Donald Trierweiler, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 99-126, revocation 
of taxicab medallion. Hearing January 26, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board 
voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Taxicab Commission's resolution revoking Taxicab Medallion No. 654. Then 
upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to ADOPT the findings prepared by Thomas 
Owen, Deputy City Attorney. 

Items (4A) and (4B) shall be heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 98-052 

WILFREDO MENDOZA, Appellant [Protesting issuance on March 11, 1998, 

vs. [to Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (upgrade electrical wiring, 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [replace window, install skylight, remodel 

[kitchen, insulate walls where accessible) 

[at 3647 - 23 rd Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9804149. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(4B) 



APPEAL NO. 98-127 



WILFREDO MENDOZA, et al., Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on July 1, 1998, to 
[Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a Building 
[(remove interior walls to convert two unit 
[building to single family dwelling) at 
[3647 - 23 rd Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9810383. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 99-112 



WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 
[that the laundromat business at 3647-49 
[- 23rd Street is limited by Planning Code 
[Sections 182, 710.40 and 790.102(e) to 
[serve only the immediate neighborhood 
[with all washing and cleaning done 
[on-site and with all windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 99-159 



HERMAN & JANE ABELSON, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated September 24, 1999 that 
[the proposed screened off-street 
[parking space in front of 1970 Jackson 
[Street is not permitted under Planning 
[Code Section 132(b) which requires a 
[13-foot front setback, unless a variance 
[is sought and granted. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9918712. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 99-166 



HAL LEININGER, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on October 8, 1999, 
[to Thomas and Susan Bernard, permit 
[to Alter a Building (to complete work 
[started under PA #8404649 and 
[extended under PA #8805005; remove 
[two walls, one parapet wall, and firewall) 
[at 1920 Golden Gate Avenue. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9921351. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. V99-204 



SARAH & PETER MORSE, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Decision by the Zoning Administrator 
[dated December 14, 1999, denying a 
[Rear Yard Variance (convert basement 
[into habitable ground level, reduce 
[length of existing raised deck so as to 
[create a new garden/patio at ground 
[level, replace existing retaining wall and 
[fence, install new gate at rear property 
[line, and remodel existing main floor of 
[the rear cottage) at 2847-2851 Clay 
[Street. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.523V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY 16, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 99-205 



JEROME BARULICH & BRUCE SCHNEIDER, 

Appellants 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
[dated December 16, 1999 that smoke 
[and odors emitted by the rooftop 
[exhaust vents of Eliza's Restaurant at 
[1457-1 8 th Street did not reach the level 
[of offensiveness that would be a 
[violation of Planning Code Section 
[703.2(b)(2)(B), and recommending that 
[owners and neighbors seek assistance 
[of a mediation service. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) Proposed Annual Department Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 . For public hearing, consideration 
and adoption. 

Copies are available at Board office. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal bhef. 

2. Pemnit holder's response and rebuttal bhef. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office. 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 



Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



< 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Rachel Arnstine O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4683, telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e-mail 
Rachel_ArnstineO'Hara@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. Public Library 
Government Infor. Center 
Larkin/Grove Sts. 
Dept. 41 



>3c 



^ MINUTES OF THE 
? 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ,fO AR B6£dlgII^)EPT. 

WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 16, 2000 MAR , 20C[) 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, 
Allam El Qadah and John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning 
Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert 
H. Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a pubiic hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : None 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKER : Executive Secretary informed the Board that he was scheduling on March 1 , 2000 Appeal 
No. 98-212 for Clarification of Conditions imposed after public hearing on July 14, 1999, as they had 
requested, and would inform the parties and counsel by mail. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD ; 

ITEM A : Letter from Lynn Axelrod, attorney for Victor and Linda Vitlin, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9702332S, issued to Ed Tanseu to erect a 200-unit 
(residential and live/work) building at 855 Folsom Street. 

Date issued December 23, 1999 

Last day to appeal January 7, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction February 3, 2000 






MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF BOARD OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY 16. 2000 



ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the 
request for jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lynn Axelrod, attorney for requestor, asked the Board to allow her client to file a late 
appeal because she had tried diligently to find out if a permit had been issued but was not told it had 
been by DBI until after the appeal period had ended. She said there was no indication to her that the 
permit was issued pursuant to a conditional use authorization. 2. Ed Tanseu, permit holder said that his 
permit was pursuant to Planning Commission Motion No. 14772 which approved his residential-live work 
project and that the requestor knew this since he had appealed it to the Board of Supervisors and lost. 3. 
Larry Badiner for the Planning Commission supported Mr. Tanseu's statement concerning the conditional 
use history of the project. 

SECOND REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM B : Letter from Raquel Fox, attorney for Frank Daijo, appellant requesting a second rehearing of 
Appeal No. 99-073, 470 - 25 th Avenue. Hearing July 14, 1999. Upon motion by President Mclnerney, 
the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Vice President Chin because of a conflict of interest. Then after 
testimony, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (President Mclnerney dissented) 
to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit. Request for rehearing October 13, 1999. Upon 
motion by President Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to RECUSE Vice President Chin because of conflict 
of interest. Then upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (President Mclnerney 
dissented) to grant the request for rehearing. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The request 
was DENIED . Notice of Decision and Order released October 18, 1999. Request for suspension of rules 
January 26, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE President 
Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney 
dissenting) to SUSPEND THE RULES and set aside its October 13, 1999 decision denying the request 
for rehearing, thus giving the appellant another 10-day period to file a request for rehearing. 

ACTION : RESCHEDULED prior to hearing to April 5, 2000 at the request of the permit holder with the 
agreement of the appellants. 

SPEAKER : The Executive Secretary reported that the permit holder had telephoned late in the 
afternoon to say he did not have counsel yet and requested that the matter be put over to April 5, 2000 
so that he could be properly represented; Raquel Fox, attorney for appellant, had been informed and 
agreed. 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM C : Letter from Donald Trierweiler, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 99-126, revocation 
of taxicab medallion. Hearing January 26, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board 
voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Taxicab Commission's resolution revoking Taxicab Medallion No. 654. Then 
upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to ADOPT the findings prepared by Thomas 
Owen, Deputy City Attorney. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner El Qadah 
dissented) to DENY the request for rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Donald Trierweiler, appellant, requested a rehearing based on his 1990 physician's 
report on his herniated disc problem. 2. Thomas Owen, Deputy City Attorney for the Taxicabi 
Commission, argued that the report was already in the record and was of no relevance to the present 
revocation nor did it justify a rehearing of the appeal. 






MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF BOARD OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY 16. 2000 



Items (4A) and (4B) were heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 98-052 

WILFREDO MENDOZA, Appellant [Protesting issuance on March 11, 1998, 

vs. [to Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (upgrade electrical wiring, 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [replace window, install skylight, remodel 

[kitchen, insulate walls where accessible) 

[at 3647 - 23 rd Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9804149. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 98-127 

WILFREDO MENDOZA, et al., Appellants [Protesting issuance on July 1, 1998, to 

vs. [Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a Building 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [(remove interior walls to convert two unit 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [building to single family dwelling) at 

[3647 - 23 rd Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9810383. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE 
the matter to April 5, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, reported on his review of the City records 
as to the legal number of units in the subject building, two over a commercial level. 2. Raquel Fox, 
attorney for the appellants, reported on the litigation still pending between her client and the property 
owner/permit holder. She said that one of the permits was issued in error and that they should both be 
revoked, referring to the documents attached to her letter to the Board. She said the building was 
legally three residential units and one commercial unit. 3. Martin Mendoza, son of the appellant, said 
he was raised in this building and described the way it was configured when he was young, always as 
four units. 4. Alex Weyand, attorney for the permit holder, reported that a jury had rejected the 
appellants' arguments and that the jury was from all walks of life. He said the case would be heard 
again in a couple of months and he questioned whether the Board had any jurisdiction since the trial 
had decided many issues regarding eviction of the Mendozas under the Ellis Act. 5. Judith Boyajian 
advised the Board that they did have jurisdiction over the building permits appealed. She said the two 
newest Commissioners could not vote on the matter until they had reviewed transcripts of the original 
hearings in 1998 and 1999. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-112 

WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants [Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 

vs. [istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [that the laundromat business at 3647-49 

[- 23rd Street is limited by Planning Code 
[Sections 182, 710.40 and 790.102(e) to 
[serve only the immediate neighborhood 
[with all washing and cleaning done 
[on-site and with all windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF BOARD OF APPEALS. FEBRUARY 16. 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to April 5, 
2000. 

SPEAKER : Alex Weyand, attorney for the appellants, asked that this matter also be continued to April 

5, 2000. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 99-159 

HERMAN & JANE ABELSON, Appellants [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

vs. [istrator dated September 24, 1999 that 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [the proposed screened off-street 

[parking space in front of 1970 Jackson 
[Street is not permitted under Planning 
[Code Section 132(b) which requires a 
[13-foot front setback, unless a variance 
[is sought and granted. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9918712. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice President Saunders 
absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to March 29, 2000. 






SPEAKERS : 1. The Executive Secretary reported on the letter received from the appellants 
requesting the appeal be continued to March 29, 2000 to allow time for them to negotiate conditions of 
the variance granted to them for an off-street parking space. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood 
Planning, representing the Zoning Administrator, agreed to the continuance since the final decision on 
the variance application has not been issued nor the conditions decided on. 






(7) APPEAL NO. 99-166 

HAL LEININGER, Appellant [Protesting issuance on October 8, 1999, 

vs. [to Thomas and Susan Bernard, permit 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (to complete work 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [started under PA #8404649 and 

[extended under PA #8805005; remove 
[two walls, one parapet wall, and firewall) 
[at 1920 Golden Gate Avenue. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9921351. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice President Saunders 
absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to April 26, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. The Executive Secretary reported on the request by the permit holder for 
rescheduling the hearing to April 26 so that he can have plans prepared which comply with the Code. 
2. Hal Leininger, the appellant, objected to the rescheduling. 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF BOARD OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY 16. 2000 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. V99-204 



SARAH & PETER MORSE, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Decision by the Zoning Administrator 
[dated December 14, 1999, denying a 
[Rear Yard Variance (convert basement 
[into habitable ground level, reduce 
[length of existing raised deck so as to 
[create a new garden/patio at ground 
[level, replace existing retaining wall and 
[fence, install new gate at rear property 
[line, and remodel existing main floor of 
[the rear cottage) at 2847-2851 Clay 
[Street. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.523V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE 
the Zoning Administrator and GRANT the variance with findings. 

SPEAKER : 1. Larry Badiner for the Zoning Administrator explained the project and how it failed to 
meet the five requirements required for granting a variance, especially since there was no hardship due 
to the land. 2. Peter Morse, the appellant, explained the personal hardship for his wife in using the 
front flat and the need for their fixing the rear cottage and moving into it. He said they had the support 
of all their neighbors. 4. Bruce Bonacker, architect for the Morses, explained with a chart how many of 
the surrounding properties are larger than the Morse property, and that the project will result in bringing 
the cottage up to neighborhood standards and will increase the garden for the benefit of the Morses 
and the tenants in Ms. Goldman's building next door. Public Comment in Support of the Appellants: 
5. Kris Mcintosh spoke briefly in support of the project and said the Morses were good neighbors. 6. 
Margo Golden, owner of the abutting property, said they share a common easement and the project will 
reduce the size of the deck and create a garden her tenant would benefit from. 7. Linda Klonda noted 
that the proposed basement bedroom will not increase the cottage's envelope, the Pacific Heights 
Residents Association does not oppose the project or the variance, and the project will enhance the 
neighborhood. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 99-205 



JEROME BARULICH & BRUCE SCHNEIDER, 

Appellants 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
[dated December 16, 1999 that smoke 
[and odors emitted by the rooftop 
[exhaust vents of Eliza's Restaurant at 
[1457-1 8 th Street did not reach the level 
[of offensiveness that would be a 
[violation of Planning Code Section 
[703.2(b)(2)(B), and recommending that 
[owners and neighbors seek assistance 
[of a mediation service. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner 
Mclnerney, who left the room at 7:39 p.m. Then after discussion, upon motion by Vice President 
Saunders the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator. 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF BOARD OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY 16. 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the determination and 
the investigation by the Planning staff of the complaints regarding smoke and odors from the restaurant, 
including three site visits. 2. Jerome Barulich, co-appellant, showed a video of the rooftop of the 
restaurant at several noon hours showing smoke being emitted from a chimney and explained his history 
of complaints against the restaurant. 3. Bruce Schneider, co-appellant, offered letters from other 
neighbors who suffer from the smoke and odors from Eliza's, and said he cannot open his windows and 
must accept reduced rentals from his units because of these nuisances; he felt the evidence was 
overwhelming. 4. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for Eliza's, described the site visits by the Planning staff and 
said the Planning Code has a different standard than the Clean Air Act and the Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District. He said his client has tried to work out problems with the appellants but could 
never please them. 5. Joe Yick said his firm had installed the vent originally when Eliza's moved in, and 
that moving the vent to a different spot on the roof would not be productive because of the winds and air 
currents. 6. William Saltz, City Inspector with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, reported on 
his investigations of the complaints about Eliza's; he said no citations have been issued since there has 
never been the five complaints within a 24 hour period necessary to trigger a citation. 7. James Ting, 
also a City Inspector for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, reported on the 10 to 20 times he 
received complaints regarding the smoke and odors from Eliza's roof vent; he said they could only 
confirm that there was smoke and odor but would not measure it. Public Comment in Support of 
Eliza's: 8. Arienne Landry said she operates the hamburger restaurant nearby and that Ms. Sung of 
Eliza's has helped her; she also said that it only took three hours to fill many pages of signatures in 
support of Eliza's, and that she felt the complaints were a complete waste of time. 9. Robert Garner, a 
neighbor at 314 Missouri, said that he lives next to Mr. Schneider's building, only five feet from his deck, 
and has never had a problem with Eliza's; he also said that Potrero Hill feels that Eliza's is one of the best 
things to happen there. 10. Shannon Harrison said she works at home with an office on her deck and her 
door open and that no aromas from Eliza's bother her; she also said Eliza's prepares healthy, non-fried 
food, and that Eliza's has increased the property values in the area, and that older neighbors unable to 
attend this hearing asked her to convey their support for Eliza's. 11. Frank Clauss of 437 Pennsylvania 
Avenue said he eats at Eliza's three or four times a month and he has not noticed any problems from 
smoke or odors. 12. Mary Jean Kloss said the restaurant is always immaculate inside and out. 13. Irving 
Zaretsky, the owner of the building, said Ms. Sung is the best tenant he has ever had and that every 
possible attempt has been made to ameliorate the problem, but to no avail; he also described the history 
of the building from its construction as a bakery. 14. Jan Sung, one of the owners of Eliza's, explained 
how she has tried to keep the property clean and address the concerns of the appellants. 

(10) Proposed Annual Department Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 . For public hearing, consideration 
and adoption. Copies are available at Board office. 

SPEAKERS : No one from the public spoke. 1. Commissioner Mclnerney recommended $50,000 be 
added to the budget for technological improvements to allow the staff to meet the Prop G requirements 
for public information. 2. President Chin suggested $6,000 be added for funding community meetings 
for the Board to go into neighborhoods to explain its role in government and to hear the concerns of the 
people. 3. Commissioner El Qadah suggested money be requested for furniture for the office to make 
it a professional ergonomic environment for the staff. 4. Commissioner Cullum asked for a letter to the 
City Administrator requesting more appropriate office space for the office. 



6 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF BOARD OF APPEALS, FEBRUARY 16. 2000 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. 




Arnold Chin, President 








Robert H. Feldman 
Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 



joo 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 * — ' 

WEDNESDAY(JVlARClTl. 2000^ ) 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

FEB 2 8 2009 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRA! ! V 

(3) CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS : Appeal No. 98-212 heard July 14, 1999 for the property 3^8 West 

Clay Street, Rainer and Beatrice Baldauf, appellants, and DeLeys Brandman, permit holder (Application 
No. 9824371). Board upheld permit on condition the permit holder revise plans to vent the kitchen range 
on the roof and close up the side wall vent, with appellants to pay 55% of the necessary and reasonable 
costs up to $5,500. 

(4) CONSENT ITEM : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to a 
vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal. 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 00-020 

FRANK LEMBI, Appellant [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

vs. [on January 31, 2000 for work done at 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [980 Bush Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9923475. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



5) APPEAL NO. 00-007 

ESPERANZA ZAVALA & OTTO R. CARDONA, dba [Denial on December 29, 1999, of Billiard 

"ESPERANZA'S BAR & GRILL", Appellants [Parlor permit at 80 - 29 th Street. 

vs. [FOR HEARING TODAY. 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent 

6) APPEAL NO. 99-051 

HOC NGUYEN, Appellant [Request dated March 29, 1999 for sus- 

vs. [pension of Building Permit Application 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [No. 9902213 issued February 2, 1999 

[for installation of 22 windows on the 
[north and west of the building at 700 
[Great Highway, for reason the 
[replacement windows do not comply 
[with the Design Guidelines for Ocean 
[Beach Parcel 3 approved as part of 
[87.081 CPCP, Motion No. 11278 of the 
[Planning Commission. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

7 ) APPEAL NO. 00-005 

GEORGE & AMY LUO, Appellants [Denial on December 29, 1999, of permit 

vs. . [to Remove and Replace three trees at 

DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent [2390 - 39 ,h Avenue. 

[ORDER NO. 172,095. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 1, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 99-184 



LOUISE BIRD, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on November 3, 
[1999, to Farias Outdoor, permit to Paint 
[a Wall Sign at 146 King Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9923443. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-006 



PATRICIA A. McCOLM, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on December 30, 
[1999, to Marc Balistreri, permit to Alter a 
[Building (excavate basement for eight 
[foot ceiling; construct new foundation; 
[construct new bedroom and family room 
[in basement with bath and laundry; 
[widen garage door; relocate partitions 
[for new bedrooms and bath) at 575 
[Miramar Avenue. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-002 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated December 21, 1999 that 
[Sectorbase.com LLC, a multi-media 
[business, is a principal permitted use at 
[2701- 16 th Street in the M-1 (Light 
[Industrial) district since it is a "Business 
[Service" under Planning Code Section 
[222 with an off-street parking require- 
ment of 18 spaces. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 00-008 



JUDY L. WEST, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated January 5, 2000 that 
[expansion of the non-complying rear 
[structure at 321 Potrero Avenue cannot 
[be approved until a variance from the 
[rear yard standards for residential 
[blocks of buildings in M-1 (Light 
[Industrial) districts has been granted, 
[and the fact that serious strengthening 
[and disabled access is being provided 
[as part of the proposed expansion has 
[no bearing on this determination. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal bhef. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY IN F ORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader durinc 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relatec 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In orde 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remindec 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City t< 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUM 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Marke 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessibl 
services call 923-6142. 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Pol 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the publi 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct tl" 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people ar 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisc 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Ta 
Force: Rachel Amstine O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S< 
Francisco, CA 94102-4683, telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e-mi 
Rachei_ArnstineO'Hara@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from tl 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuc 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that th 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 1 6.520-16.52 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, plea 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, i 
(415)703-0121. 






CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 









MINUTES OF THE 



DO 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

' 9 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, 
Allam El Qadah and John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning 
Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert 
Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS: None. DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . MAR - 8 2000 

SPEAKERS : None. SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

(3) CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS : Appeal No. 98-212 heard July 14, 1999 for the property at 38 West 
Clay Street, Rainer and Beatrice Baldauf, appellants, and DeLeys Brandman, permit holder (Application 
No. 9824371). Board upheld permit on condition the permit holder revise plans to vent the kitchen range 
on the roof and close up the side wall vent, with appellants to pay 55% of the necessary and reasonable 
costs up to $5,500. 

ACTION : President Chin requested that the Department of Building Inspection report on progress in 60 
days, May 3, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Alice Barkley, attorney for appellants, requested that the Board require compliance with 
its order of last July. 2. DeLeys Brandman, permit holder, reviewed history of case and requested 
assurance that appellants will pay their part as required by the Board. 3. Susan Lowenberg on behalf of 
appellants urged the Board to revoke the permit. 4. Craig Brandman, permit holder, explained that 
money in attorney's escrow account was worrisome and said he would comply with the order to build as 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MARCH 1. 2000 

soon as the rainy season was over. 5. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, explained that 
DBI has the power to cancel a permit and abate a nuisance if conditions of Board are not met. 

(4) CONSENT ITEM : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to a 
vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal. 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 00-020 

FRANK LEMBI, Appellant [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

vs. [on January 31, 2000 for work done at 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [980 Bush Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9923475. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 OVERRULE 
the department with the CONDITION that the penalty be reduced to two times the regular fee of $573.95 
for a total of $1,147.90. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Fred Kollerbohm, agent for appellant, explained that no work was done before permit 
was obtained. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported that the district inspector 
had seen little work done and consented to a reduction in the penalty to two times the regular fee. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-007 

ESPERANZA ZAVALA & OTTO R. CARDONA, dba [Denial on December 29, 1999, of Billiard 

"ESPERANZA'S BAR & GRILL", Appellants [Parlor permit at 80 - 29 th Street. 

vs. [FOR HEARING TODAY. 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 2-3 (Vice 
President Saunders and Commissioners Cullum and El Qadah dissented) to DENY the permit. Four 
votes are needed to overrule and the denial is UPHELD. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sergeant William Coggan, attorney for SFPD, explained why the Police denied the poo 
table permit for the bar based on its record of calls, complaints, and effects to be expected if granted. 2 
Esperanza Zavala, co-appellant, explained that complaints were generated by an irate neighbor wh 
wants to put her out of business; she asked that she be given permission for a pool table just as man 
bars in the City have, and that it is not fair to deny her one. Public Comment for Police: 3. Michae 
Pryfogle, husband of Elizabeth Baca, complaining neighbor, explained that adult customers of the bai 
were responsible for the noise problem. 4. Joseph Porcoro, of the Northwest Bernal Alliance, spoke ir 
opposition to pool table because it attracts a different element that his neighborhood group does no 
want; he said his group has good relations with 12 neighborhood bars and only this one causes 
problems. 5. Royce Schumacher, also of the Northwest Bernal Alliance, said that the other 12 bars were 
on their side, and Zavala's was not. Public Comment for Appellant: 6. Sandra Gonzalez offered tc 
translate for appellant if it became necessary and said she was a customer and she observed nc 
violence in the bar, and that the dirt from the nearby Safeway was being blamed on the bar. 7. Antonic 
Ayala said he remembered a pool table in the bar when it was called "Tiffany's" and he felt there were nc 
reasons not to allow this owner to have a pool table since it was a very clean place. 8. Michael Mood\ 
said that pool players do not drink so much and that other places are jealous. 9. Margarita Barahon? 
(translated by Sandra Gonzalez) described her weekend visits to the bar and observing no problems. 10 
Angelica Franco said she enjoys this bar, had observed no violence, and that the people are calm. 11 
Anita Ybarra said she has known the appellant for 15 years and that she used to play pool; she has seer 



i. 



wwim r/"*<*r"*A/** 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 1. 2000 

playing pool and that a table would not bring problems to this bar. 13. Jim Ham of the Rainbow Novelty 
Company said he operates eighty pool tables at bars in the Bay Area and that when Tiffany's had a table 
there were no problems. 14. Otto Cardona, co-appellant, said that the Police could not prove anything 
against them and that Police visits because of noise complaints came from the neighbors to harass them. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 99-051 

HOC NGUYEN, Appellant [Request dated March 29, 1999 for sus- 

vs. [pension of Building Permit Application 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [No. 9902213 issued February 2, 1999 

[by the Zoning Administrator for install- 
[ation of 22 windows on the north and 
[west of the building at 700 Great 
[Highway, for reason the replacement 
[windows do not comply with the Design 
[Guidelines for Ocean Beach Parcel 3 
[approved as part of 87.081 CPCP, 
[Motion No. 11278 of the Planning 
[Commission. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD 
the Zoning Administrator's letter of suspension. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, explained alternatives available and offered to use 
dark curtains behind the tinted glass and add muttons to give the windows the same look as others 
nearby. 2. Jeff Chin, an architect, spoke on behalf of the appellant and said the exposure was awful 
being so close to the ocean, and that single pane windows were better than multiple pane ones. 3. Larry 
Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, urged the Board to uphold the department's suspensions 
since this was a clear case of violation of the Commission's conditions, the Residential Guidelines and 
the Urban Design element of the General Plan, as well as of good taste. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 00-005 

GEORGE & AMY LUO, Appellants [Denial on December 29, 1999, of permit 

vs. [to Remove and Replace three trees at 

DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent [2390 - 39 th Avenue. 

[ORDER NO. 172,095. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the 
Department of Public Works and DENY the permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Cheryl Dupperrault, Urban Forestry Inspector, Department of Public Works, described 
the healthy condition of the subject trees and explained how these trees did not meet the department's 
guidelines for removal. 

(8) APPEAL NO. 99-184 

LOUISE BIRD, Appellant [Protesting issuance on November 3, 

vs. [1999, to Farias Outdoor, permit to Paint 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Wall Sign at 146 King Street. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9923443. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 1. 2000 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the 
Department of Building Inspection and GRANT the permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jeffrey Leibowitz of the South End Citizen Advisory Committee spoke for the appellant 
and explained how the group was trying to avoid the problems Denver had in the area near their new 
ballpark with new controls expected in a few months after many hearings and a consensus by the 
neighborhood; he asked the Board to continue the appeal until the controls went into effect so this permit 
would be subject to the controls. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained that 
the Code did not allow for Discretionary Review of the sign permit and he confirmed what Mr. Leibowitz 
had said. 3. Patrick Richards, attorney for the permit holder, said the permit had been properly issued 
and that if the Board of Supervisors had wanted a moratorium they would have enacted one. Public 
Comment for the Appellant: 4. Paul Chow from the South Park Community agreed that the signs were 
an important part of City life but that they had to be reviewed carefully and he agreed with the appellants. 



(9) 






APPEAL NO. 00-006 



PATRICIA A. McCOLM, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on December 30, 
[1999, to Marc Balistreri, permit to Alter a 
[Building (excavate basement for eight 
[foot ceiling; construct new foundation; 
[construct new bedroom and family room 
[in basement with bath and laundry; 
[widen garage door; relocate partitions 
[for new bedrooms and bath) at 575 
[Miramar Avenue. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLl 
the department and GRANT the permit with NO CONDITIONS. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Patricia McColm, appellant, asked the Board to adopt conditions limiting construction! 
hours and related restrictions which she feels are necessary to prevent unhealthy stress during her 
illness. 2. Sal Balistreri, attorney for the permit holder, told the Board there was no need for restrictions! 
on the permit and that the appellant had caused his client (and son) much distress; he also said that suchj 
restrictions would make the job last a year. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-002 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admi- 
nistrator dated December 21, 1999 that 
[Sectorbase.com LLC, a multi-media 
[business, is a principal permitted use at 
[2701- 16 th Street in the M-1 (Light 
[Industrial) district since it is a "Business 
[Service" under Planning Code Section 
[222 with an off-street parking require- 
ment of 18 spaces. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD! 
the Zoning Administrator's determination with FINDINGS. 



SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the Determination and 
how the multimedia industry was considered a "Business Service" and not an "Office Use." 2. Sue 
Hestor, attorney for appellant, complained that the Planning Department keeps approving these multi- 



lannn trame* wwirn racr\or»t 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 1. 2000 

media uses as "Business Services" instead of as "Office Uses," thereby sparing them the affordable 
housing and child care fees levied on office conversions, in this case about $700,000 for housing and 
$100,000 for child care. 3. Laurence Komfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported that his 
department treats these as "Office Use" for Building Code purposes. 4. Timothy Tosta, attorney for 
Sectorbase.com, described the discretionary power of the Zoning Administrator to determine use 
categories that are not in the Planning Code; he described the Internet industry and how his client's 
business was like the publishing business and not an "Office Use." Public Comment for Appellant: 5. 
Doug Shoemaker of the Mission Housing Development Corporation argued that logically if this were an 
insurance business it would be considered an "Office Use" and that it was a false analogy to consider it 
like publishing since it had none of the noxious dangerous aspects of the old industry. 6. Jake 
McGoldrick said that Proposition M of 1986 was the heart of the matter with a nexus of needs and 
impacts of office development. 7. Eric Quezada from a grass-roots organization in the Mission District 
said the new businesses coming in have a profound impact, putting pressure on housing and that the 
determination was a bad precedent. 8. Joan Holden of the San Francisco Mine Troupe said that the arts 
are endangered by the new industries, which use space formerly available to artists and performers. 
Public Comment for the Zoning Administrator: 9. Jim Gonzalez of the Technology & Information 
Coalition described recent changes in the Mission and how he welcomes the new i9ndustry; he said the 
".com" industry would pay for affordable housing and child care as soon as the Board of Supervisors 
enact new regulations that cover them. 10. Donald Lee, the current tenant of the subject property, said 
he searched six months and found good space with easier access to transportation and he supports the 
determination. 11. Reverend Arnold Townsend spoke in support of Sectorbase.com and described how 
it seeks to be in the City because of its ethnic and cultural diversity. 12. Seguei Panskikh, an engineer in 
the Internet industry, encouraged the Board to support the ".com" businesses which are good for the City. 
13. Christopher Thunberg said that Sectobase.com creates opportunities wherever they locate. 

(11) APPEAL NO. 00-008 

JUDY L. WEST, Appellant [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

vs. [istrator dated January 5, 2000 that 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [expansion of the non-complying rear 

[structure at 321 Potrero Avenue cannot 
[be approved until a variance from the 
[rear yard standards for residential 
[blocks of buildings in M-1 (Light 
[Industrial) districts has been granted, 
[and the fact that serious strengthening 
[and disabled access is being provided 
[as part of the proposed expansion has 
[no bearing on this determination. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin 
and Commissioners Mclnemey and El Qadah dissented) to overrule the Zoning Administrator's 
determination. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The determination is UPHELD. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, said that the work the appellant wants to do on the 
roof of the rear building will not affect the occupants of the front residential building so that requiring the 
appellant to seek a rear yard variance was not appropriate; he also said that the development of the M 
districts was different then the residential districts where rear yards and the variance process made 
sense. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the reason that the work 
proposed on the rear building required the granting of a variance since the whole rear building is non- 
complying with the rear yard standards and is built entirely in the required rear yard of the residences in 
the front building. Public Comment for the Appellant: 3. Olga Kist of 470 Potrero Avenue said it had 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 1. 2000 

taken three years to get through the variance process and that the unusual development pattern in the M 
districts should make the variance unnecessary. 4. Michael Spaer said that work proposed would make 
no change in the rear building's footprint or in the open space area between the buildings, making a 
variance unnecessary. 5. Anita Margrill, an architect, said she had a similar situation in renovating an old 
building with a courtyard and that a variance should not be required. 

There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. 




Arnolg/Ghin, President 





>£(k~ 



Robert H. Fel 
Executive Secretary 

Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 



5 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY, 4VIARCH 8. 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET! 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. DOCUMENTS DE p T 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . ^AR - 3 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 

(3) APPEAL NO. 00-016 PUBLIC LIBRARY 
WAEL QAHHAZ, Appellant [Suspension of six months and two year 

vs. [probation imposed on December 16, 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [1999, of driver of public vehicle permit 

[(JURISDICTION GRANTED JANUARY 
[26, 2000). 

[RESOLUTION NO. 74-99. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

Items (4A) and (4B) shall be heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 98-136 

ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants [Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 

vs. [Demolish a Building at 407 Connecticut 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Street. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9715365 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 98-137 

ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants [Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 

vs. [Erect a Building (two dwelling units) at 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [407 Connecticut Street. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9715364. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-035 

LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant [Protesting issuance on November 12, 

vs. [1998, to John and Evelyn Schiappaca- 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [sse, permit to Alter a Building (remove 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [walls to provide parking spaces and 

[remove daycare facility) at 2234-2236 

[Francisco Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9823286. 

[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARCH 18, 

[1999. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-015 

CHRONICLE BROADCASTING CO., Appellant [Protesting issuance on January 13, 

vs. [2000, to JCDecaux San Francisco, Inc.! 

DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent [permit to install an automatic pay toilet 

[at the NW corner of Van Ness Avenue 

[and O'Farrell Street. 

[PERMIT NO. 2000PT-001. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 8. 2000 - PAGE 2 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-018 



GARRETT & LORI VAN WAGONER, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[Denial on February 1 , 2000, of permit to 
[Alter a Building (new bay window at rear 
[facade first floor and balcony) 3630 
[Jackson Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9909429S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-011 



SAM & HESTER NAKAMURA, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on January 11, 
[2000, to Scott Kalmbach, permit to Alter 
[a Building (remodel existing home and 
[rear addition) at 14 Harris Place. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9914126S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-012 



GREGORY B. BLEDNYH, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on January 10, 
[2000, Steve and Koko Fujii, permit to 
[Alter a Building (interior remodel of 
[kitchen, bath, bedrooms; replace deck 
[on north side with solarium; extend 
[building on west side of second level 
[approximately four feet) at 181 Edgehill 
[Way. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9713647S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 99-190 



TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated November 12, 1999 that 
[the proposed restaurant at 412 
[Broadway, "BoysToys", does not require 
[conditional use authorization from the 
[Planning Commission since the Police 
[Department does not deem it adult 
[entertainment, and by the previous 
[interpretation the size of the restaurant 
[use has not been abandoned and the 
[proposed restaurant is a principal 
[permitted use in the Broadway 
[Neighborhood Commercial District; also 
[requests disapproval of Planning 
[approval of Department of Public Health 
[restaurant permit. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. V00-010 

ALI KHOSTOVAN, Appellant [Denial on December 9, 1999 of Parking 

vs. [Variance (to add one unit to an existing 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [five-unit building without providing the 

[required parking space) at 1133 Hayes 
[Street (JURISDICTION GRANTED ON 
[JANUARY 12,2000). 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.613V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ADJOURNMENT . 

Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal bhef. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal bhef. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 



These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 

should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 

Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 

public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 

regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 

| hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 

I the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 

! case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Cathe 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possi 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader di 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of neec 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or rel; 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In o 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remin 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the Cil 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible M 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Ma 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI access 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across F 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the pul 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people | 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Franci 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance T 
Force: Rachel Arnstine O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, 
Francisco, CA 94102-4683, telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e-n 
Rachel_ArnstineO'Hara@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web sit 
www.ci.sf.ca.us. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individi 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that ti 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.! 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pies 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, 
(415)703-0121. 






CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 






MINUTES OF THE 

<5 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

fo> ? * 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, and Commissioners Carole Cullum, Allam El Qadah and John 
Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning 
Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert 
Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

ABSENT : Vice-President Sabrina Saunders. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

SPEAKERS : None. 

MAR 1 2000 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
SPEAKER : Commissioner El Qadah congratulated President Chin and Commissioner Mclnerney on 
their being re-appointed for four more years by the Mayor. 

(3) APPEAL NO. 00-016 

WAEL QAHHAZ, Appellant [Suspension of six months and two year 

vs. [probation imposed on December 16, 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [1999, of driver of public vehicle permit 

[(JURISDICTION GRANTED JANUARY 

[26, 2000). 

[RESOLUTION NO. 74-99. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 8. 2000 



ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice- 
President Saunders absent) to UPHOLD the Taxicab Commission's Resolution on CONDITION that the 
6 month suspension be reduced to 4 months, with the 2 year probation period unchanged. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Thomas Owen, Deputy City Attorney, for the Taxicab Commission, described the 
incidents with passengers and the failure to have proper waybills that led to the suspension and 
probation of the appellant. 2. Wael Qahhaz, appellant, told about the incidents from his point of view and 
said that he never had problems driving and that driving a cab was his life. 3. Sgt. Vince Simpson, 
Taxicab Detail, San Francisco Police Department, explained the pattern of abusive language present in 
this case and how it led to the suspension; he also said there have been three complaints against the 
appellant since the Taxicab Commission action. 

Items (4A) and (4B) were heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 98-136 

ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants [Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 

vs. [Demolish a Building at 407 Connecticut 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Street. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9715365 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 98-137 

ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants [Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 

vs. [Erect a Building (two dwelling units) at 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [407 Connecticut Street. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9715364. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders absent) 
to CONTINUE this matter to April 12, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : Paul Minton, concerned neighbor, asked the Board to not continue the cases to March 15 
since he will be out of town that day and suggested April 12, May 10, 24, or 31. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-035 

LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant [Protesting issuance on November 12, 

vs. [1998, to John and Evelyn Schiappaca- 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [sse, permit to Alter a Building (remove 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [walls to provide parking spaces and 

[remove daycare facility) at 2234-2236 

[Francisco Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9823286. 

[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARCH 18, 

[1999. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was CONTINUED to April 12, 2000 at the request of the permit holder with the 
agreement of the appellant. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Alioto, attorney for appellant, reported that the appellant had filed for a 
variance application which had been heard last week, but that no decision had been issued by the acting 

2 






. — — . w. wi I iiwiiio Ul IIILCICOl HJ 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 8, 2000 



Zoning Administrator; he also said that continuing the case to April 12 th would allow for either side to 
appeal the variance decision and for both cases to be heard at the same time. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-015 

CHRONICLE BROADCASTING CO., Appellant [Protesting issuance on January 13, 

vs. [2000, to JCDecaux San Francisco, Inc., 

DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent [permit to install an automatic pay toilet 

[at the NW corner of Van Ness Avenue 

[and O'Farrell Street. 

[PERMIT NO. 2000PT-001. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This appeal was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 
SPEAKERS : None 

(7) APPEAL NO. 00-018 

GARRETT & LORI VAN WAGONER, Appellants [Denial on February 1 , 2000, of permit to 

vs. [Alter a Building (new bay window at rear 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [facade first floor and balcony) 3630 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [Jackson Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9909429S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders absent) 
to RESCHEDULE this case to March 15, 2000 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, asked that the case be rescheduled to the next 
meeting so that all five members could hear it. 2. Tay Via, attorney for the neighbors supporting the 
denial, agreed to a rescheduling to March 15, 2000. 

(8) APPEAL NO. 00-011 

SAM & HESTER NAKAMURA, Appellants [Protesting issuance on January 11, 

vs. [2000, to Scott Kalmbach, permit to Alter 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (remodel existing home and 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [rear addition) at 14 Harris Place. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9914126S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This appeal was WITHDRAWN by the appellants prior to hearing. 
SPEAKERS: None. 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MARCH 8. 2000 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-012 



GREGORY B. BLEDNYH, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



(10) 



[Protesting issuance on January 10, 
[2000, Steve and Koko Fujii, permit to 
[Alter a Building (interior remodel of 
[kitchen, bath, bedrooms; replace deck 
[on north side with solarium; extend 
[building on west side of second level 
[approximately four feet) at 181 Edgehill 
[Way. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9713647S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders absent) to 
RESCHEDULE this case to March 15, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Marc Seidenfeld, attorney for appellant, asked that the matter be rescheduled to next 
week so that all five members could participate. 2. Christopher Moscone, attorney for permit holders, 
said he would be out of the country next week but that a member of his firm would attend the hearing. 



APPEAL NO. 99-190 



TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated November 12, 1999 that 
[the proposed restaurant at 412 
[Broadway, "BoysToys", does not require 
[conditional use authorization from the 
[Planning Commission since the Police 
[Department does not deem it adult 
[entertainment, and by the previous 
[interpretation the size of the restaurant 
[use has not been abandoned and the 
[proposed restaurant is a principal 
[permitted use in the Broadway 
[Neighborhood Commercial District; also 
[requests disapproval of Planning 
[approval of Department of Public Health 
[restaurant permit. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders absent) to 
RESCHEDULE this case to March 15, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Walter Wong, agent for the real party in interest, "BoysToys," asked that the case be 
rescheduled to a later date so that all five members could participate. 2. Aaron Peskin, agent for 
appellant, said he was willing to have the hearing tonight with only four members, but he was willing to 
put it over for five. 






IVWIIIO Ul IlllCICOl LU 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 8, 2000 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. V00-010 



ALI KHOSTOVAN, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Denial on December 9, 1999 of Parking 
[Variance (to add one unit to an existing 
[five-unit building without providing the 
[required parking space) at 1133 Hayes 
[Street (JURISDICTION GRANTED ON 
[JANUARY 12,2000). 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.613V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders absent) 
to RESCHEDULE this case to March 15, 2000 

SPEAKERS : 1. Ahmad Mohazab, agent for appellant, requested that the case be rescheduled to a later 
date because his client couldn't be present now. 2. Deborah Henderson, a neighbor, asked the Board to 
improve the notification given to neighbors who had shown interest at the variance hearing. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m. 




Arnold Chin, President 




tobert H. Feldman — 
Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 



joolj mg 'tpuejg ulpw 
Aaejqn ^LLqnd *J*S 

J9}U33 UOLq.eilUOJ.UI tLUaUIUJ9A09 



50 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 
* WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect to 
agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 



(2) 
(3) 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . ° UCh 

MAR ] 2C00 

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : e ...^, 
SAN FRANCIS, 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING : PUBLIC LIBRARY 

ITEM A : Letter from Jerome Barulich, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 99-205, Eliza's 
Restaurant at 1457 - 18 th Street. Hearing February 16, 2000. Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, 
the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney, who left the room at 7:39 p.m. Then after 
discussion, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning 
Administrator's determination that the smoke and odors emitted by the rooftop exhaust vents did not reach 
the level of offensiveness that would be a violation of the Planning Code. 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM B : Letter from Barbara J. Harvey requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit 
Application No. 9910085S issued to Alan Khoo and Betty Szeto for a two-story 25-foot rear horizontal 
addition at 2434 - 21 st Avenue. 

Date issued January 25, 2000 

Last day to appeal February 9, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction February 29, 2000 

(4) APPEAL NO. 99-198 

2836 WASHINGTON STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC, [Denial on December 20, 1999, of permit 

Appellant [to Alter a Building (install new garage; 

vs. [remodel entry stairs; add new window 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on first floor; add exterior siding) at 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [2836 Washington Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9903695S. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-192 

SETH CHARNEY, Appellant [Protesting issuance on November 15, 

vs. [1999, to Yury Trubnikov, permit to Erect 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (eight live/work units) at 1025 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Minna Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9801 703S. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-018 

GARRETT & LORI VAN WAGONER, Appellants [Denial on February 1 , 2000, of permit to 

vs. [Alter a Building (new bay window at rear 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [facade first floor and balcony) 3630 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [Jackson Street. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9909429S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 15, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-001 



MARIE & BOBBIE GRAVES, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on December 17, 
[1999, to Karolis Riauba, permit to Alter 
[a Building (construction of stairs and 
[deck located in the rear of building) at 
[350 Summit Street. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9905938. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-012 



GREGORY B. BLEDNYH, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on January 10, 
[2000, Steve and Koko Fujii, permit to 
[Alter a Building (interior remodel of 
[kitchen, bath, bedrooms; replace deck 
[on north side with solarium; extend 
[building on west side of second level 
[approximately four feet) at 181 Edgehill 
[Way. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9713647S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 99-190 



TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated November 12, 1999 that 
[the proposed restaurant at 412 
[Broadway, "BoysToys", does not require 
[conditional use authorization from the 
[Planning Commission since the Police 
[Department does not deem it adult 
[entertainment, and by the previous 
[interpretation the size of the restaurant 
[use has not been abandoned and the 
[proposed restaurant is a principal 
[permitted use in the Broadway 
[Neighborhood Commercial District; also 
[requests disapproval of Planning 
[approval of Department of Public Health 
[restaurant permit. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. V00-010 



ALI KHOSTOVAN, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Denial on December 9, 1999 of Parking 
[Variance (to add one unit to an existing 
[five-unit building without providing the 
[required parking space) at 1133 Hayes 
[Street (JURISDICTION GRANTED ON 
[JANUARY 12, 2000). 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.613V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) APPEAL NO. V00-014 

BARRY DEUTSCH, Appellant ' [Protesting granting on January 18, 2000, 

vs. [to Chrysalis, LLC, Lot Width Variance 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [(subdivide an existing 73.5' wide lot into 

[three 24.5' wide lots each with 2,450 s.f.) 

[for property at 690 De Haro Street. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.804V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 15, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(12) APPEAL NO. V00-017 

PETER STRAUSS, Appellant [Appeal of Condition 2 of Rear Yard 

vs. [Variance (allow construction of a two- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [story rear addition that encroaches 

[approximately 4'4" into the required rear 
[yard) granted for property at 317 
[Rutledge Street. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.623V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13) APPEAL NO. V00-019 

FREDERICK L. MILEY, Appellant [Denial of Rear Yard Variance (remodel 

vs. [and raise existing house from 23 to 27 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [feet above grade; a portion of the 

[building is already within the required 
[rear yard) on January 25, 2000 for 
[property at 1562 Masonic Avenue. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.697V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to a!! Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine? 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader durinc 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relatec 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In orde 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remindec 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City tc 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUN 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Marke 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessibl 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Pol 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct th 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people an 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisc 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Taj 
Force: Rachel Arnstine O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Ss 
Francisco, CA 94102-4683, telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e-m; 
Rachel_ArnstineO'Hara@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from tr 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us. 



LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individus 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that trv 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.53 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, plea: 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, f 
(415)703-0121. 









CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



: 



S.F. Public Library 
Government Infor. Center 
Larkin/Grove Sts 
Dept. 41 



lvram nrtartnf* itorvip \niitn m^r\ai-+ 



MINUTES OF THE 
if 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 Z 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, 
Allam El Qadah and John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning 
Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert 
Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect to 
agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. _ ^ 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

', SPEAKERS : None. 

MAR 2 ^ 20C3 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
SPEAKER : President Chin explained the Board rules to the audience and requested their cooperation for 

the long calendar. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : Letter from Jerome Barulich, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 99-205, Eliza's 
Restaurant at 1457 - 18 th Street. Hearing February 16, 2000. Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, 
the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney, who left the room at 7:39 p.m. Then after 
discussion, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning 
Administrator's determination that the smoke and odors emitted by the rooftop exhaust vents did not reach 
the level of offensiveness that would be a violation of the Planning Code. 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 15, 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. 
Then after testimony, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 to DENY the request 
for rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jerome Barulich, co-appellant, requested a rehearing so that several neighbors would 
have a chance to testify. 2. Bruce Schneider, co-appellant, asked that the Planning Department conduct 
random video monitoring of the emissions of smoke from the restaurant's chimney. 3. Joel Yodowitz, 
attorney for Eliza's Restaurant, asked the Board to deny the request for rehearing for lack of new evidence 
and said that the Code sections cited by the appellants were not relevant or were discussed at the hearing 
and that they were just asking for reconsideration of the original evidence. 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM B : Letter from Barbara J. Harvey requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit 
Application No. 9910085S issued to Alan Khoo and Betty Szeto for a two-story 25-foot rear horizontal 
addition at 2434 - 21 st Avenue. 

Date issued January 25, 2000 

Last day to appeal February 9, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction February 29, 2000 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the 
request for jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Barbara Harvey requested that the Board allow her to file a late appeal because the 
notice of issuance of the permit was sent to her husband's place of business and not her home as had 
been the Section 311 notice of application. 2. Betty Szeto, permit holder, said she and her husband Alan 
Khoo had no intention of circumventing the process and that the dilapidated garage did not have a proper 
foundation and was near collapse when their contractor took it down. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief 
Building Inspector, DBI, reported on his site visit on March 14, 2000, and said there was no permit issued 
for the demolition of the garage and that it was not proper to include the demolition of the garage on an 
alteration permit; he also thought there might be planning issues which would come out in the review of a 
' demolition permit. 4. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, reported that the garage was 
non-complying structure if it was in the required rear yard, and that there should be a Section 311 notic 
sent out for the project. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 99-198 

2836 WASHINGTON STREET DEVELOPMENT, LLC, [2836 Washington Street. 

Appellant [Denial on December 20, 1999, of permit 

vs. [to Alter a Building (install new garage; 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [remodel entry stairs; add new window 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [on first floor; add exterior siding). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9903695S. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to 
OVERRULE the Planning Department and GRANT the permit with revised plans. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that he had reviewed the 
revised plans and that they complied with the Planning Code requirements. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief 

2 






>^rn avrnm annnnfl Itomr innth roennr-t 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 15, 2000 



Building Inspector, DBI, said he reviewed the revised plans with Tom Lee, plan checker, and that they 
were complete and the Board's issues were met, but there were several technical Code issues that would 
have to be resolved; he also said the plans had not yet been routed to DBI for checking. 3. Carlos 
Alvarez, attorney for appellant, said that the four concerns of the Board had been addressed in the revised 
plans, and reminded the Board that the Planning staff had recommended approval of the project to the 
Planning Commission; he also said that Mr. Seidel no longer opposed the project. 4. Ian Berke, on behalf 
of the Pacific Heights Residents Association, said that that the Board had been explicit about the four 
concerns and that they had said the serial permitting had to end. He said his group feared that the rear of 
the building would not be as they expected and the developer's history was not honorable. .He felt there 
were many issues that could not be resolved and he asked the Board to retain jurisdiction to monitor the 
project. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-192 

SETH CHARNEY, Appellant [1025 Minna Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on November 15, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [1999, to Yury Trubnikov, permit to Erect 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [a Building (eight live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9801 703S. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice 
President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to GRANT the permit. The Board then voted 5- 
to RESCIND the previous vote. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 
3-2 (Vice-President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to GRANT the permit with 
FINDINGS. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, representing the Planning Department, reminded the Board that it had 
continued the case to allow for Ms. Hestor to receive and review the submittal by the permit holder. 2. 
Yury Trubnikov, the permit holder, said he had done 20 projects in the City and none had to be changed. 
He said only two properties on Minna Street have rear yards and that creating a rear yard on his project 
made no sense and that he was asking the Board to approve his project as it had been approved and 
issued. 3. Sue Hestor, attorney for the appellant, said that the Planning Commission had required a ten- 
'• foot setback and then a fire escape had been added to reach a deck, not the ground, with existing 
problems described by Mr. Kornfield unresolved. 4. Charlie Ledogar, a tenant on bottom floor of the 
appellant's building submitted a photo album to show how the project would take airspace next to the 
ungracious live/work building there already. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-018 

GARRETT & LORI VAN WAGONER, Appellants [3630 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Denial on February 1, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Alter a Building (new bay window at rear 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [facade first floor and balcony). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9909429S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE 
the department and GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the project/addition be pulled back one foot, 
with FINDINGS as contained in the report by the Planning staff. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, representing the Planning Department, explained that the Planning 
Commission had denied the permit because of privacy issues. 2. Jeremy Paul, representing the 

3 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 15, 2000 






appellants, said that the project met the design review checklist and that the Planning staff had 
recommended approval. He said the design echoes the Julia Morgan architecture of the house. Public 
Comment in Support of the Planning Department: 3. Tay Via, attorney for adjoining property owners 
Lisle and Roslyn Payne, said that under the Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) small gestures count as 
good neighbor gestures; she also said that the appellants had made many incorrect statements and that 
there was no evidence the project meets the RDG. 4. Robert Baum, architect for adjoining property 
owners Lisle and Roslyn Payne, said that the Planning Commission required only minor modifications to 
avoid detrimental impact on the neighbors and that the Paynes added only 4'-'8" with their 1983 addition; 
he also said that the Planning Commission was only asking that the rear walls of the two. buildings be 
aligned. 5. Lisle Payne, adjoining property owner, said the project was at a different scale than it was 
presented to be by the appellants; he also said that it was a massive addition 15 feet in height and will 
have a major impact on his patio. Public Comment for the Appellants: 6. Lynn Forney Stone, the god- 
daughter of Julia Morgan who designed the subject house, said she supported the appellants who she felt 
were keeping the house as Julia Morgan would have wanted it. 7. Duncan McCloud, architect for 
appellants, answered Board members questions concerning the area of the kitchen to be expanded and 
the effect of shortening the depth of the proposed extension. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 00-001 

MARIE & BOBBIE GRAVES, Appellants [350 Summit Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on December 17, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [1999, to Karolis Riauba, permit to Alter 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [a Building (construction of stairs and 

[deck located in the rear of building). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9905938. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the 

permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Marie Graves, co-appellant, said she believes the project is an attempt to convert the 
house into three flats and she gave a history of the block since 1992. 2. Karolis Riauba, permit holder, 
explained his need for a balcony and rear stairs because he and his friends have two dogs, and his friend 
'• is giving him welding lessons, but that he is not trying to convert the house into three units. 3. Val 
Rabichev, architect for permit holder, said he felt the appeal was based on loss of views to appellants; he 
also said that the proposed deck had been redesigned to accommodate the appellants by moving it away 
from the property line which made a fire wall unnecessary and preserved the neighbor's views. 4. Larry 
Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, gave his analysis of the plans and said the proposed 
changes did not require a Section 31 1 notice. Public Comment for Permit Holder: 5. Claudio Yerahian 
said he lives in the building and it wasn't being converted into three flats. 6. Bob Vasquez said he thought 
the real issue was fear of parking congestion instead of the privacy issue originally expressed by the 
appellants; he also said that he feels the neighbors keep changing their story and that he is teaching his 
friend how to weld. 



rf-ia unnrn DvrnriT ononno itomc iniitli raenaM 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 15, 2000 



(8) APPEAL NO. 00-012 

GREGORY B. BLEDNYH, Appellant [181 Edgehill Way. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on January 10, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, Steve and Koko Fujii, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Alter a Building (interior remodel of 

[kitchen, bath, bedrooms; replace deck 
[on north side with solarium; extend 
[building on west side of second level 
[approximately four feet). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9713647S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin 
dissented) to OVERRULE the Department of Building Inspection & Planning Department and REVOKE 
the permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Marc Seidenfeld, attorney for appellants, described the steepness of the hill with the 
permit holders above and his clients below; he also said that there have been major landslides in the area 
in the past and that proper construction techniques haven't been used by the permit holders and that a 
proposed carport behind the permit holder's house was dangerous for his clients. 2. Robert Sanford, 
attorney for permit holders, submitted plans and photos and said that his client would follow the 
recommendations of his engineer's report and would meet all Codes and any new soils requirements; he 
also said that the parking issue-would come later when plans for parking are submitted but that his client 
was suffering hardship and wanted to move back into his house. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood 
Planning, PD, said that the issued permit was valid, but that the work done may have exceeded the scope 
of the permit, and that the permit holder must have adequate parking. 4. Laurence Komfield, Chief 
Building Inspector, DBI, said that work was done without permits and that he was concerned about the 
footings; he also described the requirements for special inspections and notice to the City before work 
proceeds. Public Comment for the Appellants: 5. Scott Sombatpanit rents a room in the appellants 
house and expressed his concern about the hazard for him and appellants caused by the project; he also 
feels the project if allowed to go on unchecked would create a dangerous precedent in the City. 6. Nancy 
Koch lives downhill of the permit holders and said that when the project was just replacement of a deck 
and solarium she had no objections but now that they have built four stories without a permit it seems like 
'i a Taj Mahal and is much more than 60 square feet as shown on the plans and she objects; she also said 
that she is a physics teacher and the permit holders seem to have built 3.5 times the mass of the original 
building on the same footings. Public Comment for the Permit Holders: 7. Tim Colen, President of the 
Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association, said the permit holders have been frozen out of their 
home and are suffering a hardship and want very much to finish the job and move back in; he also said 
that the new Edgehill legislation is to protect all the homeowners. 8. Gertrude Roth lives uphill from the 
permit holders and said that the old garage that had been demolished was unsafe and that it was right to 
remove it, and asked the Board to let the job be finished. 9. Srinvas Mohan, geo-technical engineer for 
the permit holder, said that there have been no mudslides on this property and he did a standard geo- 
technical study and the permit holders were following his recommendations with footings 12 feet deep and 
not 2 feet deep as the neighbors reported. 10. Doug Lipkin, general contractor for the permit holder, said 
the plans had been resubmitted to meet the Codes. 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 15, 2000 



(9) APPEAL NO. 99-190 

TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS, Appellant [412 Broadway. 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated November 12, 1999 that 

[the proposed restaurant, "BoysToys", 
[does not require conditional use 
[authorization from the Planning 
[Commission since the Police 
[Department does not deem it adult 
[entertainment, and by the previous 
[interpretation the size of the restaurant 
[use has not been abandoned and the 
[proposed restaurant is a principal 
[permitted use in the Broadway 
[Neighborhood Commercial District; also 
[requests disapproval of Planning 
[approval of Department of Public Health 
[restaurant permit. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE 
this case to April 5, 2000 on CONDITION that no more requests to reschedule shall be granted. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Walter Wong, agent for "BoysToys," asked that the matter be rescheduled because the 
attorney for "BoysToys" could not be present. 2. Aaron Peskin, agent for appellant, asked that no more 
requests to reschedule be granted because this was the third one and he was ready to go forward now 
with the hearing. 

(10) APPEAL NO. V00-010 

ALI KHOSTOVAN, Appellant [1 1 33 Hayes Street. 

vs. [Denial on December 9, 1999 of Parking 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Variance (to add one unit to an existing 

-, [five-unit building without providing the 

[required parking space). 
[(JURISDICTION GRANTED ON JANU- 
ARY 12, 2000). 
. [VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.613V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to to CLOSE the Public 
Hearing and CONTINUE this case to CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said the lot is not accessible by car 
and that the Zoning Administrator found a hardship but that Requirement No. 4 could not be met because 
of strong neighborhood opposition which means the project will have a significant detrimental impact on 
the area. 2. Ahmad Mohazab, architect for the appellant, reported that the Alamo Square Neighborhood 
Association had withdrawn its earlier objection; he also described his efforts to secure parking on the 
neighbor's property. Public Comment in Support of the Zoning Administrator: 3. Brian McCarthy 
described the neighborhood as formerly of moderate density but now beyond its capacity with motorcycles 
and cars parked on the sidewalk. 4. Deborah Henderson, daughter of an adjoining property owner, 
described the congestion of the neighborhood with tourists coming through all the time. She said she was 






\f\/itl-» raonoot 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 15, 2000 



not opposed to the building itself but that parking is a major problem in the area, and that her father would 
not agree to an easement. 5. Frank Green said he is opposed to this variance request as an immediate 
neighbor because there is not enough parking on the streets of the area. He said the appellant bought the 
property twenty-years ago knowing it was landlocked and that "buyer bewares" applies. The illegal 
addition to the building block his windows and he asked that it be removed. 

(11) APPEAL NO. V00-014 

BARRY DEUTSCH, Appellant [690 De Haro Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on January 18, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Chrysalis, LLC, Lot Width Variance 

[(subdivide an existing 73.5' wide lot into 
[three 24.5' wide lots each with 2,450sf) 
[for property at 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.804V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the 
variance on CONDITION that new language be added to the variance decision as prepared by Larry 
Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Plannning, PD. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Chris Cole, attorney for appellant, said he had 200 signatures on a petition opposing the 
variance and that he felt the Variance was illegal because it violated a provision of the Building Code with 
lot lines cutting through an existing building on the lot. He asked that the variance be denied so the 
project could be set for a full hearing at the Planning Commission. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of 
Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the variance decision and said the six-inch discrepancy in lot 
widths being allowed were imperceptible to the eye and that there was no affordable housing involved in 
the case. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, explained the memorandum of K.K. Chu of 
his department regarding subdivisions, property lines and alignments with buildings. He said there were 
many ways of dealing with the existing buildings, fire walls, moving the building, demolition. 4. Kevin Dill, 
one of the partners in Chrysalis LLC, and an architect, said they would not have property lines remaining 
through the house but there was no decision yet how they would deal with the old house. He described 
the history of the lot and its late owner and the appellants, and asked the Board to uphold the variance. 
-, Public Comment for Appellants: 5. Bonnie Baron said she was extremely distressed by the variance 
because the lot is unique in the area once called Goat Hill. 6. Doris Roberson described her life in the 
area since 1952 and the character of the neighborhood. She opposes the four two-family houses to be 
built on the four lots owned by the variance holders which will change the character of the neighborhood 
forever. 7. Jules Haywood, on Potrero Hill since 1955, said Mrs. Buck, the late former owner of the 
subject property, was his other mother. He agreed with what Ms. Roberson and Ms. Baron had said. He 
said it was one of the finest spots in the world. Public Comment for Variance Holders: 8. Anna 
Giarretto, the current owner and daughter of the late Anna Buck, said the original plants on the property 
were only anise and grasses, and that the garden there now was planted by the appellant with her 
mother's permission. 9. Lise Maisano, Ms. Giarretto's daughter, said there is nothing sacred on the lot 
and most plants there are not native. Denying the variance would penalize the family for allowing the 
appellant to garden there. She said it was private property and that everyone should be on notice that no 
trespassing is allowed on the property and that the best use of the property was for new housing. 10. 
Barbara Presta said that Ms. Roberson had just built a house nearby. She said that there are already two 
lots on the block less than 25 feet in width. Daryl Nelson said that if the lot were 75 feet wide no variance 
would be necessary to subdivide it into three lots. She felt that the six-inch discrepancy made no 
difference at all and that the neighbor who had introduced butterflies and plants onto the land was the one 
opposing the variance. 11. Mark Bond said he is real estate broker who represents both the buyer and 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 15, 2000 



the seller. 12. Steven Carleton said he lives in the Presidio but wants to move into the City and that he is 
amazed that anyone would oppose new housing. 



(12) APPEAL NO. V00-017 

PETER STRAUSS, Appellant [317 Rutledge Street. 

vs. [Appeal of Condition 2 of Rear Yard 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Variance (allow construction of .a two- 

[story rear addition that encroaches 
[approximately 4'4" into the required rear 
[yard) granted for the property. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.623V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD 
Condition 2 in the variance decision with slight language modifications. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Commissioner Cullum announced that she lives in Bernal Heights but not near the site. 
2. Peter Strauss, appellant, explained the variance condition he wanted deleted which would reduce the 
property's value in five or ten years when he tried to sell it. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood 
Planning, PD, explained that the condition was standard language meant to counterbalance the effect of 
the variance when one tries to expand a building. Public Comment in Support of the Zoning 
Administrator: 4. Neil Gibbs said six owners nearby failed to be notified of the variance hearing and 
supported the condition. 5. John Abbott explained the zoning controls in Bernal Heights regarding parking 
requirements and asked that the condition be upheld. 6. Lisa Li agreed with the two previous speakers. 
7. F. Lee Moulton, architect for the appellant, spoke in rebuttal and said that the appellant had supplied 
the required address labels with their variance application and he could not account for the failure of 
notice to the six neighbors. He said the condition was a heavy flag on the property. 

(13) APPEALNO.V00-019 

FREDERICK L. MILEY, Appellant [Denial of Rear Yard Variance (remodel 

vs. [and raise existing house from 23 to 27 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [feet above grade; a portion of the 

[building is already within the required 
[rear yard) on January 25, 2000 for 
. [property at 1562 Masonic Avenue. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.697V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



i 



ACTION : After discussion , upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE 
the Zoning Administrator and GRANT the variance on CONDITION that the existing house be raised 
2 feet instead of 4 feet, with FINDINGS. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained that the application was 
denied because there was no hardship and the appellant could excavate to accomplish his expansion of 
floor area or could add on at the front of the building. 2. Frederick Miley, appellant, reported that Robert 
Barnes, the neighbor initially opposing his project, had changed his mind and now supported his raising 
the building two feet, instead of the four feet originally requested. He said he now proposed to go down 
one foot and up two feet, to create a nice living condition. Public Comment in Support of Appellant: 

8 



* f-i i r-»r i r-» n nT ma wnrarn 



ovram -aoonno trame \n#i*i^ raenort 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MARCH 15, 2000 



3. Robert Barnes, the neighbor, said he now supports the revised plan and that both he and the appellant 
were satisfied. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 1 1 :40 p.m. 




ArnoldjQhin, President 





«*/^-f><0 /j2/j 



Robert H. Feldman 
Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 



Ao|SMopzeLM9 X"jjai :imv 

joolj mg 'ipueug inew 

£iejq.n oiiqnd *J'S 

j9q.ueo uo.L^euuoj.ui ^uauuuaAog 






5/oo 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 J 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2000 

5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL. ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. _ ^ 

DOCUMENTS DEP^ 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . |^ A ft g j ^ 

SAN FRANCISCO 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : PUBLIC LIBRARY 

SECOND REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : Letter from Raquel Fox, attorney for Frank Daijo, appellant requesting for the second time 
rehearing of Appeal No. 99-073, 470 - 25 th Avenue, permit holder Hugo Villavicencio. Hearing July 14, 
1999. Upon motion by President Mclnemey, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Vice President Chin 
because of a conflict of interest. Then after testimony, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board 
voted 3-1 (President Mclnerney dissented) to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit. Request 
for rehearing October 13, 1999. Upon motion by President Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to RECUSE 
Vice President Chin because of conflict of interest. Then upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the 
Board voted 3-1 (President Mclnerney dissented) to grant the request for rehearing. Four votes are 
needed and the motion failed. The request was DENIED. Notice of Decision and Order released 
October 18, 1999. Request for suspension of rules January 26, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner 
Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney dissenting) to SUSPEND THE RULES and set 
aside its October 13, 1999 decision denying the request for rehearing, thus giving the appellant another 
10-day period to file a request for rehearing. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM B : Letter from Patricia A. McColm, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-006, 575 
Miramar Avenue, permit holder Marc Balistreri. Hearing March 1, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with NO 
CONDITIONS. 

ITEM C : Letter from Judy West, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-008, 321 Potrero 
Avenue. Hearing March 1, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President 
Chin and Commissioners Mclnerney and El Qadah dissented) to overrule the Zoning Administrator's 
determination that expansion of the non-complying rear yard structure cannot be approved until a rear 
yard variance has been granted, and providing seismic strengthening and disabled access has no 
bearing on this determination. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The determination is 
UPHELD. 

Items (4A) and (4B) shall be heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 98-052 

WILFREDO MENDOZA, Appellant [3647 - 23 rd Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on March 11, 1998, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (upgrade electrical wiring, 

[replace window, install skylight, remodel 

[kitchen, insulate walls where 

[accessible). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9804149. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED FEBRUARY 16, 2000. 

[FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 5, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(4B) 



APPEAL NO. 98-127 



WILFREDO MENDOZA, et al., Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[3647 - 23 rd Street. 

[Protesting issuance on July 1, 1998, to 
[Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a Building 
[(remove interior walls to convert two unit 
[building to single family dwelling). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9810383. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED FEBRUARY 16, 2000. 
[FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY. 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 99-112 



WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[3647-49 - 23rd Street. 
[Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 
[that the laundromat business is limited 
[by Planning Code Sections 182, 710.40 
[and 790.102(e) to serve only the 
[immediate neighborhood with all 
[washing and cleaning done on-site and 
[with all windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-021 



SHARON FERTITTA, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent 



[4109 -20 th Street. 

[Denial on January 26, 2000, of permit to 

[Remove and Replace two trees. 

[ORDER NO. 172,128. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 99-086 



VALMOR NETO, dba "BAHIA CABANA RESTAU- 
RANT", Appellant 
vs. 
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent 



[1600 Market Street. 
[Decision of the Police Department 
[issued May 25, 1999 to suspend the 
[Dance Hall Keeper and Place of Enter- 
tainment permits for 360 days, 270 of 
[these days to be held in abeyance for a 
[probationary period of three years. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






(8) 



APPEAL NO. 99-187 



KWAN WONG, CHE YEE MOI, DIMITRIOUS & 
ELIZABETH TRIGONIS, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1821-23 Cabrillo Street. 
[Protesting issuance on November 8, 
[1999, to Leung Chow, permit to Erect a 
[Building (two dwelling units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9904646S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



0) 



APPEAL NO. 00-026 






RAY J. MARTELLI, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1844 Greenwich Street. 
[Protesting issuance on February 2, 
[2000, to Jamil Harb, permit to Alter a 
[Building (third floor addition consisting of 
[new dwelling unit; new rear decks and 
[stairs; reconfiguring existing dwelling 
[unit at second floor). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9905422S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. APRIL 5, 2000 - PAGE 3 



Items (10A) and (10B) shall be heard together 



(10A) 



APPEAL NO. 98-207 



PACT, INC., Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[635 Divisadero Street 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated November 23, 1998 that 
[the legal use of the property is 
[two-family residential and that the NC-2 
[zoning of the property allows office use 
[on the first floor as a principal permitted 
[use, on the second floor as a conditional 
[use, and that office use is not permitted 
[on the third floor at all; appellant 
[requests permission to file conditional 
[use application for use of the entire 
[building for office use. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(10B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-013 



PLAN OF ACTION FOR CHALLENGING TIMES 
(PACT), Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[635 Divisadero Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated January 2000 that the 
[third floor of the building cannot be 
[converted from residential to office use 
[under Planning Code Section 711.38 
[and that the unauthorized office use of 
[the third floor must cease and the lawful 
[residential use reinstated. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. V99-1 51 



JOEL S. COOPERSMITH, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[3250 -17 th Street. 

[Denial on June 30, 1999, of Rear Yard 
[and Usable Open Space Variances 
[(legalize 2,100 square foot dwelling unit 
[on the second floor of an existing two- 
[story commercial building without 
[providing the required rear yard and 
[usable open space). 
[JURISDICTION GRANTED SEPTEM- 
BER 15, 1999. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.981V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(12) 



APPEAL NO. 99-190 



TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[412 Broadway. 

[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated November 12, 1999 that 
[the proposed restaurant, "BoysToys", 
[does not require conditional use 
[authorization from the Planning 
[Commission since the Police 
[Department does not deem it adult 
[entertainment, and by the previous 
[interpretation the size of the restaurant 
[use has not been abandoned and the 
[proposed restaurant is a principal 
[permitted use in the Broadway 
[Neighborhood Commercial District; also 
[requests disapproval of Planning 
[approval of Department of Public Health 
[restaurant permit. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 5, 2000 - PAGE 4 



(13) 



APPEAL NO. 00-023 



FRANCIS A BASA, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1601 Pacific Avenue. 

[Protesting issuance on February 9, 

[2000, to J. Sullivan, permit to Alter a 

[Building (interior wall relocation, window 

[and door changes). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/01/13/89. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1 . Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherir 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader durir, 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relate 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In ord 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remind< 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MU 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Mart 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessik 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across P< 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the pub 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 1 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people a 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francit 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance T< 
Force: Rachel Arnstine O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S 
Francisco, CA 94102-4683, telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e-m 
Rachel_ArnstineO*Hara@ci.sf.ca.us Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individi 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that tl 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.5 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pie; 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. Public Library 
Government Infor. Center 
Larkin/Grove Sts 
Dept. 41 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 



'* 



SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS DOCUMENTS DEPT 

^ ^ 

I WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2000 APR * 4 2 °M 

SAN FRANCISCO 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, 
Allam El Qadah and John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning 
Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert 
Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Patricia A. McColm requested that the Board adopt rules regarding confidentiality and 
prohibiting acceptance of ex parte materials by the staff. 2. Tay Via, attorney for Lisle & Roslyn Payne, 
neighbors of the permit holders in Appeal 00-018, heard March 15, 2000, asked the Board to suspend its 
rules and allow her clients, who are not principals in Appeal 00-018, to file a Request for Rehearing in 
that matter to allow them to present alternative plans for the project. 3. Jeremy Paul, agent for the Van 
Wagoners, the appellants in Appeal 00-018, urged the Board not to set aside its rules so that the 
neighbors could request a rehearing for the reason that they will be able to appeal the permit upon its 
issuance, and the alternative plans proposed by the Paynes were in evidence at the hearing. He noted 
that the Board's decision was consistent with the Planning Department staff recommendation to the 
Planning Commission. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS : 1. President Chin announced that Commissioner Cullum was present but not well and that 
he requested that those testifying be sensitive to that fact. Also, he asked that Item 13 be called early 
because Commissioner Mclnerney must be recused and without Commissioner Cullum it could not be 
heard. 2. Commissioner Cullum said she would attempt to stay for the entire calendar in spite of her 
illness. 3. Commissioner Mclnerney moved that the Board direct the staff to calendar Tay Via's request 
to set aside the Board rules to allow her clients to file a Request for Rehearing in Appeal 00-018; the vote 
was 1-4 for his motion and that ended the matter. 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 5. 2000 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

SECOND REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : Letter from Raquel Fox, attorney for Frank Daijo, appellant requesting for the second time 
rehearing of Appeal No. 99-073, 470 - 25 th Avenue, permit holder Hugo Villavicencio. Hearing July 14, 
1999. Upon motion by President Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Vice President Chin 
because of a conflict of interest. Then after testimony, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board 
voted 3-1 (President Mclnerney dissented) to overrule the department and deny the permit. 4 votes 
being necessary to overrule a department, the permit was UPHELD. Request for rehearing October 13, 
1999. Upon motion by President Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to RECUSE Vice President Chin 
because of conflict of interest. Then upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 
(President Mclnerney dissented) to grant the request for rehearing. Four votes are needed and the 
motion failed. The request was DENIED. Notice of Decision and Order released October 18, 1999. 
Request for suspension of rules January 26, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board 
voted 4-0 to RECUSE President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board 
voted 3-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney dissenting) to SUSPEND THE RULES and set aside its October 13, 
1999 decision denying the request for rehearing, thus giving the appellant another 10-day period to file a 
second request for rehearing. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to RECUSE President Chin, 
who left the room at 6 p.m. Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (President 
Chin was recused) to GRANT the Request for Rehearing. The rehearing was set for May 24, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Raquel Fox, attorney for appellant Frank Daijo, in Appeal No. 99-073, requested for the 
second time that the Board grant a rehearing for the reason that she had not been served with a copy of 
the permit holder's response prior to the hearing of July 14, 1999, so she had no opportunity to respond 
to it. 2. Hugo Villavicensio, permit holder, said he doubted that Jeremy Paul had failed to send a copy of 
his response to Ms. Fox, and he reviewed the history of his ownership of the property. He said he was 
trying to make the building safe for tenants and their visitors. 3. Joe O'Donoghue spoke in support of the 
appellant and said that due process required that the Board grant a rehearing in this case. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM B : Letter from Patricia A. McColm, appellant. requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-006, 575 
Miramar Avenue, permit holder Marc Balistreri. Hearing March 1, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with NO 
CONDITIONS. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this 
matter to April 12, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Patricia A. McColm, appellant/requestor, asked that the Board consider the confidential 
medical and financial documents she had submitted, but without them being shown to the attorney of the 
appellant, since these were privileged documents that the opposing counsel could not be trusted with. 2. 
Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, in response to a question by President Chin, said that the general 
rule is that anything submitted in evidence is public record and reviewable by opposing counsel. She 
said that medical records could be submitted directly to the Board by the appellant and immediately 
returned to her, as had been done in earlier cases. 

ITEM C : Letter from Judy West, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-008, 321 Potrero 
Avenue. Hearing March 1, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President 
Chin and Commissioners Mclnerney and El Qadah dissented) to overrule the Zoning Administrator's 

2 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 5, 2000 



determination that expansion of the non-complying rear yard structure cannot be approved until a rear 
yard variance has been granted, and providing seismic strengthening and disabled access has no 
bearing on this determination. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The determination is 
UPHELD. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the 
Request for Rehearing. The rehearing was set for May 24, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Judy West, appellant/requestor, requested that the Board grant a rehearing since she 
felt that the new acting Zoning Administrator may reach a different conclusion and she does not want to 
go through the variance process. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, representing the 
acting Zoning Administrator, said that minor variances of a 10% discrepancy with Code standards, can be 
handled without a hearing. 



Items (4A) and (4B) shall be heard together 



(4A) 



APPEAL NO. 98-052 



WILFREDO MENDOZA, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[3647 - 23 rd Street. 

[Protesting issuance on March 11, 1998, 
[to Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a 
[Building (upgrade electrical wiring, 
[replace window, install skylight, remodel 



[kitchen, insulate walls 
[accessible). 

•[APPLICATION NO. 9804149. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED FEBRUARY 16, 2000. 
[FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY. 



where 



ACTION : This case was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to the meeting. 



(4B) 



APPEAL NO. 98-127 



WILFREDO MENDOZA, et al., Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[3647 - 23 rd Street. 

[Protesting issuance on July 1, 1998, to 
[Wai Ming Luk, permit to Alter a Building 
[(remove interior walls to convert two unit 
[building to single family dwelling). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9810383. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED FEBRUARY 16, 2000. 
[FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY. 



ACTION : This case was WITHDRAWN by the appellants prior to the meeting. 



(5) 



(6) 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. APRIL 5. 2000 



APPEAL NO. 99-112 



WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants 



vs. 



ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[3647-49 - 23rd Street. 
[Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 
[that the laundromat business is limited 
[by Planning Code Sections 182, 710.40 
[and 790.102(e) to serve only the 
[immediate neighborhood with all 
[washing and cleaning done on-site and 
[with ail windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This case was RESCHEDULED to May 17, 2000 prior to the meeting. 



APPEAL NO. 00-021 



SHARON FERTITTA, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent 



[4109 -20 th Street. 

[Denial on January 26, 2000, of permit to 

[Remove and Replace two trees. 

[ORDER NO. 172,128. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 
to OVERRULE the Department of Public Works and GRANT the tree-removal permit on CONDITION 
that the Department of Public Works have 30 days to attempt a re-transplant of the two trees, and on 
CONDITION that 36" planter boxes be used for the new replacement trees. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Paul Sakamano, Urban Forester, Department of Public Works, said that there were no 
cuts or diseases on these two trees and that they had caused fairly significant damage, which he 
described. He said it was a burden of being a property owner to take care of old trees. 2. Sharon Fertitta, 
appellant, described the damage done to the property by the two trees and asked the Board to allow her 
to replace them with a more suitable species. Public Comment In Support of the Department: 3. 
Carolyn Blair, Chair, San Francisco Tree Council, said it was not true that tree roots damaged sewers, but 
that sewers with holes admitted roots. She encouraged the Board to uphold the denial and save the 
trees, adding that she feels the City should take care of its trees not just cut them down. 4. Jeremy Paul, 
neighbor, said he was familiar with these trees and asked the Board to address the interests of the trees. 
5. Arthur Chang said that trees add value to property and he urged the Board to preserve these two trees 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 99-086 



VALMOR NETO, dba "BAHIA CABANA RESTAU- 
RANT", Appellant 
vs. 
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent 



[1600 Market Street. 

[Decision of the Police Department 
[issued May 25, 1999 to suspend the 
[Dance Hall Keeper and Place of Enter- 
tainment permits for 360 days, 270 of 
[these days to be held in abeyance for a 
[probationary period of three years. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 









MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 5, 2000 



ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Vice-President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD 
the suspension of these Dance Hail Keeper and Place of Entertainment permits. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sgt. William Coggan, Legal Division, San Francisco Police Department, reviewed the 
history of this appeal and reported that the department had revoked the permits in January, 2000, with no 
appeals filed, making this appeal of an earlier suspension now moot. 2. Timothy Gomes, attorney for 
appellant, said his client was out of the country and that the revocation may have been flawed by lack of 
notice to the owner. He had not represented the owner at the January hearing. He felt that the current 
appeal was not moot. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. 



(8) APPEAL NO. 99-187 

KWAN WONG, CHE YEE MOI, DIMITRIOUS & [1821-23 Cabrillo Street. 

ELIZABETH TRIGONIS, Appellants [Protesting issuance on November 8, 

vs. [1999, to Leung Chow, permit to Erect a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (two dwelling units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9904646S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT 
the permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Paul Wong, agent for co-appellant Kwan Wong, said that blockage of sunlight to rear 
yards was the key issue here, and the fruit-bearing peach tree he planted 15 years go would be 
shadowed by the proposed new two-family home. 2. Elizabeth Trigonis, co-appellant, said she had not 
received the packet from the developer and that she feels the project will be very bad for her home and 
her children who play in the yard. 3. Dan Sullivan agent for permit holder, said that any 
miscommunication was unfortunate but hat he had followed all the regulations and sent proper notices as 
required. He said that the permit was validly issued and asked the Board to uphold it. 4. Larry Badiner, 
Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that the proper Section 311 notices had been sent out and no 
discretionary review had been requested. As a key lot it is bound to affect other lots and it was 
i unfortunate but so. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. 

(9) APPEAL NO. 00-026 

i ! RAY J. MARTELLI, Appellant [1844 Greenwich Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on February 2, 

il, DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to Jamil Harb, permit to Alter a 

i PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (third floor addition consisting of 

ii [new dwelling unit; new rear decks and 

[stairs; reconfiguring existing dwelling 

[unit at second floor). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9905422S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT 
the alteration permit on CONDITION that white reflective material/paint be used in the subject property 
light well. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Ray J. Martelli, appellant, said that the Planning Department gave him a terrible time 
and that he wants a little consideration now. Eight windows will be shadowed by the addition and the 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. APRIL 5. 2000 



permit holders will not settle with him, while the Planner is hostile to him. 2. Mark Brand, agent for permi 
holder, said he had offered to meet with the appellant but was told that the appellant would oppose the 
proposed additional story no matter what, and then he said he would rely on his papers. 3. Larry 
Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, said the Planning Commission heard the matter and voted not 
to take discretionary review and approved the project. He said additional housing units are desperately 
needed in the City and this addition will only be about five feet higher than the adjacent property. 
Sunlight is not protected for private property under the Planning Code and the Planning Commission 
found the project compatible with the area. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. 



Items (10A) and (10B) shall be heard together 

(10A) APPEAL NO. 98-207 

PACT, INC., Appellant [635 Divisadero Street 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated November 23, 1998 that 

[the legal use of the property is 
[two-family residential and that the NC-2 
[zoning of the property allows office use 
[on the first floor as a principal permitted 
[use, on the second floor as a conditional 
[use, and that office use is not permitted 
[on the third floor at all; appellant 
[requests permission to file conditional 
[use application for use of the entire 
[building for office use. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to 
OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator's Determination with a FINDING that there is no 3 rd floor, and a 
FINDING that no Conditional Use Authorization is needed for the 2 nd floor, and a further FINDING that 
"office-use" on the 2 nd floor is a formerly permitted use. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larrry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, described the history of the 
Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts since their enactment during the 1970's, creating zoning 
controls for different levels of buildings, and a conditional use process to legalize certain uses at certain 
levels of buildings. He said that appellant's attorney had just informed him that the subject building was 
only two occupied stories over a basement with an attic and that if this were true that the department 
would reverse its position. 2. Shona Armstrong, attorney for appellant, described the subject building, ar 
old Victorian, and its history of use floor by floor. She said her client would seek conditional use 
authorization to legalize their use on the two stories over the basement. She gave her analysis of the 
relevant Planning Code provisions and explained how this situation complied with the Planning Code anc 
should be allowed to continue. 3. Charlene Folsom, executive director of appellant PACT, explained the 
program of PACT which makes student loans to minorities. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. 






MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 5. 2000 



(10B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-013 



PLAN OF ACTION FOR CHALLENGING TIMES 
(PACT), Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[635 Divisadero Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated January 2000 that the 
[third floor of the building cannot be 
[converted from residential to office use 
[under Planning Code Section 711.38 
[and that the unauthorized office use of 
[the third floor must cease and the lawful 
[residential use reinstated. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to 
OVERRRULE the Zoning Administrator's Determination with a FINDING that there's no 3 rd floor, and a 
further FINDING that the subject property is a 2-story building over a basement with an attic. 



SPEAKERS : Same as Item 10 (A). 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. V99-1 51 



JOEL S. COOPERSMITH, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[3250 -17 th Street. 

[Denial on June 30, 1999, of Rear Yard 
[and Usable Open Space Variances 
[(legalize 2,100 square foot dwelling unit 
[on the second floor of an existing two- 
[story commercial building without 
'[providing the required rear yard and 
[usable open space). 
[JURISDICTION GRANTED SEPTEM- 
BER 15, 1999. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.981V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the 
Zoning Administrator and DENY the variance. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained why the variance 
application had been denied, and the Health and Safety violations reported three months ago. THE 
APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAR AND THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT. 



IKJ UOJIJl Lliw wu» \J >-/ i 






MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. APRIL 5. 2000 



(12) 



APPEAL NO. 99-190 



TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[412 Broadway. 

[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated November 12, 1999 that 
[the proposed restaurant, "BoysToys", 
[does not require conditional use 
[authorization from the Planning 
[Commission since the Police 
[Department does not deem it adult 
[entertainment, and by the previous 
[interpretation the size of the restaurant 
[use has not been abandoned and the 
[proposed restaurant is a principal 
[permitted use in the Broadway 
[Neighborhood Commercial District; also 
[requests disapproval of Planning 
[approval of Department of Public Health 
[restaurant permit. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 3-2 to UPHOLD | 
the Zoning Administrator's Determination. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained how the Determination 
was arrived at based on the Police Department finding that the use was not adult entertainment and the 
previous interpretation of the Planning Code that the size of the facility and not been abandoned. Only if 
the floor area had been modified and been reduced could it have been deemed an abandonment of the 
enlarged area requiring a conditional use authorization for an increase now. 2. Aaron Peskin, president 
of appellant Telegraph Hill Dwellers, explained that the Planning Department was wrong in approving this 
project without conditional use authorization for three reasons. First, he described the overwhelming 
evidence that the use is "adult entertainment." Second, the incontrovertible fact that nowhere in the 
Planning Code does it say that size of a use cannot be abandoned, and that here was a clear case of 
abandonment for more than three years, therefore requiring a new CU to authorize the additional 1400 
square feet added for this business, just as it was required for the project at 524 Union Street. Third, he 
said that the 1400sf expansion exceeded the 500sf or less allowed as not significant and that a CU was 
necessary to allow the public to testify. 3. Joe O'Donoghue, agent for "BoysToys," said that the present 
use, deemed "other entertainment" by the Zoning Administrator, was appropriate and that the appellant 
was wrong in claiming it was something else other than a restaurant with other entertainment, for which 
the definition was very broad. Here the building was intact and the smallest in the neighborhood and he 
didn't understand the appeal. Public Comment for the Appellant: 4. Patricia Cady, speaking for 
herself and her neighbors on Vallejo Street, said she wanted the right to have input in a civil discourse on 
this big building. 5. Joan Wood, with Telegraph Hill Dwellers since 1962, but speaking for herself and not 
for the group, said she objected to the violation of the rule and that this case set a bad precedent. 

6. Rose Chung said it was an issue of fairness and equity and that no one should be above the law. 

7. Doug Comstock said he lives in the Haight-Ashbury but was interested in this case because the permit 
holder seemed to have gotten around their process. He is most concerned with the proximity of this 
business to a school and with children going by it every day, seeing signs which degrade women. He 
said the neighborhood needs to be heard. 8. Donald duBain said he learned of the matter from the 
article in the Chronicle and does not understand why this is not deemed adult entertainment. He felt the 
owner had misrepresented the business to the Zoning Administrator. 9. Alfred Fontes Jr. said that to be 
fair a CU process was needed because everyone concerned should participate in the decision. 10. Paul 
Switzer said he lives in North Beach and was astounded to hear Joe O'Donoghue speaking for the owner 
and his comments were disingenuous. He thought neighborhood input was important in this type of 



8 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 5. 2000 

case. 11. Merle Goldstone said this was her third time at the Board to testify on this appeal since she 
had reason to protest the disregard for the public interest by "BoysToys" and by the Planning 
Department. She was shocked with this clear violation of the Planning Code. Here the City should be 
fair and follow the rules and not set a bad precedent. 12. Gerry Crowley said that Telegraph Hill Dwellers 
was not en elitist group. She said she lives in an alley in the flatland while President Chin lives on the 
hill. She said even her nine-year-old granddaughter refers to this business as a "strip club." Public 
Comment for the Zoning Administrator: 13. Dan Sullivan said he worked for Planning 26 years and 
use size cannot be abandoned. The remedy the opponents had was to seek a change in the Planning 
Code to make abandonment of size possible. 14. Stefano Cassolato said that Broadway needs to be 
revitalized and businesses have to be creative. Here the food was delicious, drinks are offered and he 
saw mixed couples welcomed there. He thought the opponents were not being fair. This is Broadway in 
North Beach and not Pacific Heights and the place has much class and taste. 15. Art Fogel said he lives 
in the Marina and has been interested in this business since it was announced. He said it is a first class 
operation and he was really amazed. It is not a typical run-down, shoddy place for cheap thrills, but 
rather first class dining in a unique atmosphere. It does not change the neighborhood and it is an asset 
for the City. 

(13) APPEAL NO. 00-023 

FRANCIS A. BASA, Appellant [1601 Pacific Avenue. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on February 9, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to J. Sullivan, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (interior wall relocation, window 

[and door changes). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/01/13/89. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to RECUSE Commissioner 
Mclnerney, who left the room at 6:30 p.m. Afterwards, after discussion, upon motion by Commissioner 
Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Mclnerney was recused) to GRANT the alteration permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Francis Basa, appellant, described the height of the building as exceeding seven stories 
with the roof exits and asked that it be lowered to provide room for emergency exiting from roofs of 
adjacent buildings. He added that he had not been notified of the height of the building. 2. Jim Reuben, 
attorney for permit holder, said that the building was 75% completed and has been under construction 
since September 1999. This appeal is of a minor alteration permit only. He said the appellant had notice 
of the project through the environmental review process which showed the height of the building as 51.5 
feet. The subject permit is just to enclose roof top boilers and to change the siding. The neighbors all 
had Section 31 1 notice as well with plans attached and letters from the permit holders. Public Comment 
for the Appellant: 3. Claire McGhee said the building before was used for car inspections and was 
concerned about lack of notice for projects in commercial districts. 4. Larry Badiner, Chief of 
Neighborhood Planning, said that the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial zoning encourages retail 
over parking but that this project still had parking in the building as well as retail at ground level. 



MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. APRIL 5. 2000 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. 



// 



^ -w — - £—*7 f* 



£> 




Arnold^Y.K. Chin, President 




0U^f~< 



cobert H. Feldman 
Executive Secretary 




Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (41 
362-5991. 



uoo[j qq.g 'ipuejg ulb^ 

J3^U3Q UOL^eilUOJ.UI q.U3UIUJ3A0' 



10 



WtfO 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest tc 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respec 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing a 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, youi 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated tha 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. _ _ 

DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

APR - 7 2000 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC i IRRARV 
REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : Letter from Patricia A. McColm, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-006, 57f 
Miramar Avenue, permit holder Marc Balistreri. Hearing March 1, 2000. Upon motion by Commissione 
Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with NC 
CONDITIONS. 

ITEM B : Letter from Charles Ledogar, on behalf of Seth Charney, appellant requesting rehearing o 
Appeal No. 99-192, 1025 Minna Street. Hearing March 15, 2000. Upon motion by Commissione 
Mclnemey, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) tc 
GRANT the permit. The Board then voted 5-0 to RESCIND the previous vote. Afterwards, upon motior 
by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullun 
dissented) to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS. 

ITEM C : Letter from Christopher Cole, attorney for Barry Deutsch, appellant requesting rehearing c 
Appeal No. V00-014, 690 De Haro Street. Hearing March 15, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner E 
Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the variance on CONDITION that new language is added to the 
variance decision as prepared by Larry Badiner for the Planning Department. 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM D : Letter from Farid Dahbour, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permi 
Application No. 9906116 issued to Rosa Vega to enclose existing storage, enclose furnace and wate 
heater, install new washer/dryer closet, bathroom, wetbar, social room and bedroom (on first floor); anc 
remove kitchen and dining area, renovate existing bedrooms, install new bathroom, lightwell, rear deci 
and stairs (second floor) at 381 Maynard Street. 

Date issued September 17, 199S 

Last day to appeal October 4, 1999 

Request for jurisdiction March 24, 2000 

ITEM E : Letter from Joanne Polach, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permi 
Application No. 9916252S issued to William Wong to construct a four-story three-dwelling unit building a 
2747-2749 Judah Street. 

Date issued March 1 1 , 2000 

Last day to appeal March 27, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction March 30, 2000 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 12. 2000 - PAGE 2 



(4) APPEAL NO. 99-200 

RALPH MAHER, Appellant [Revocation by the Taxicab Commission 

vs. [on December 9, 1999, of Taxicab 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [Medallion No. 734. 

[RESOLUTION NO. 71-99. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (5A) and (5B) shall be heard together 



(5A) 



APPEAL NO. 98-136 



ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[407 Connecticut Street. 

[Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 

[Demolish a Building. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9715365 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY 



(5B) 



APPEAL NO. 98-137 



ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[407 Connecticut Street. 

[Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit tc 

[Erect a Building (two dwelling units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9715364. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 99-035 



LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2234-2236 Francisco Street. 
[Protesting issuance on November 12, 
[1998, to John and Evelyn Schiappaca- 
[sse, permit to Alter a Building (remove: 
[walls to provide parking spaces anc 
[remove daycare facility). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9823286. 
[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARCH 18 
[1999. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



Items (7A) and (7B) shall be heard together 



(7A) 



APPEAL NO. 99-120 



DANIEL WEAVER, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[236 Vernon Street. 
[Protesting issuance on July 27, 1999, t 
[Chung Kit Chan, permit to Erect 
[Building (single-family dwelling). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9906307S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7B) 



APPEAL NO. 99-148 



DANIEL WEAVER, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[238 Vernon Street. 

[Protesting issuance on September 

[1999, to Chung Kit Chan, permit t 

[Erect a Building (two-story single famil 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9906306S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. APRIL 12, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-033 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE 

GROWTH, Appellant 



vs. 



DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



,h Street, 
issuance 



[2701 - 16™ 

[Protesting issuance on February 18, 

[2000, to Union Property Capital Inc., 

[permit to Alter a Building (renovation of 

[shell and core of an existing three-story 

[building and addition of new fourth floor 

[within existing building envelope; work 

[includes seismic upgrade, new 

[accessible entry, stairs, elevators and 

[restrooms). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9926975. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






(9) 



APPEAL NO. V00-030 

LAURENCE ARNOLD, Appellant [431 6 - 23 rd Street. 

vs. [Denial on February 17, 2000, of Rear 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Yard Variance (remove the existing 

[deck and stairs and construct a new 
[breakfast room with multi-level decks 
[and stairs to an existing three-story- 
[over-garage, single-family dwelling). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9912719S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-032 



DAVID BAKER & JANE MARTIN, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[337-339 Shotwell Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated February 16, 2000 that 
[denies request to designate combined 
[office and storage Limited Commercial 
[Use space as one commercial space; 
[denies request that the apartment area 
[be 375 s.f.; denies request that the 
[stables/carriage house footprint be 
[reduced to its original dimensions of 
[approximately 20 x 25 feet; and denies 
[request that the stable/carriage house be 
[used as a workshop. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal bhef. 

3. Department decision, pennit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denial; 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or perso 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for the 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minute 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes t 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seve 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to thre 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the dat 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer an 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please cs 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, c 
visit our website at www.cj.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Boarc 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 166 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the schedule* 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comment 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of th< 
hearing will be m?de a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board z 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff an< 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance c 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised a 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board c 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or arc 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



c 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catheri 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possibl 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader duri 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relat 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In ore 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remind 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible Ml 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Mar 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessi 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across P 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the put 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people • 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Franci 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance T 
Force: Rachel Arnstine O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, 
Francisco, CA 94102-4683, telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e-i 
Rachel_ArnstineO'Hara@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web sit 
www.cl.sf.ca.us. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individ 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.! 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pie 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



o^T^s^ Center 






:Mif 'iirin r\i 



inu Hfiarn oYronr nr\£±r\r%i ttomr tA/itH ropnnM 



.MINUTES OF THE 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

* DOCUMENTS DEPT„ 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12. 2000 

^ MAY - 5 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 SAN FRANCISC0 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, 
Allam El Qadah and John Mclnemey. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning 
Department; Seth Todd Huntington, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and 
Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

Vanji McGonegal, substitute for Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those 
who intended to testify during the meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor urged the Board to grant a rehearing on Appeal No. 99-192 for the reason 
that the DBI required fire escape at the rear which interfere with the rear yard open space required by the 
Planning Commission. 2. Mary Ellen Flynn said she and the neighbors were concerned about the scale 
of the project on Minna Street, Appeal 99-192, as well as yards and parking, and she urged the Board to 
grant a rehearing. 3. Ronald Lippert and Pamela Brown reported to the Board as requested at their 
appeal hearing (Appeal No. 99-175 continued for further hearing to July 19, 2000) on their efforts to find 
jobs and a new home in one of the Northern Counties where Ms. Brown has made several applications 
for jobs. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS : 1 . Commissioner Mclnerney reported that he would probably be late or absent for the 
meeting of April 26 since he was expected to arrive at SFO from New York late in the afternoon that day 
and the flight could be held up. 2. President Chin asked those in the audience to turn off their pagers and 
cell phones so as not to disturb the hearings. 



MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 12. 2000 






(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 
REQUESTS FOR REHEARING: 



ITEM A : Letter from Patricia A. McColm, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-006, 575 
Miramar Avenue, permit holder Marc Balistreri. Hearing March 1, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with NO 
CONDITIONS. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the 
request for rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Patricia McColm requested that the Board grant her a rehearing and that any 
Commissioners who saw the documents in the file which she felt was prejudicial to her should be recused 
from this hearing. She said that her request for conditions limiting the time the permit holder could work 
were modest and she asked the Board to rehear her appeal. 2. Sal Balistreri, attorney for permit holder, 
reported that the day before there was a moving van outside the appellant's house and she was now 
living in a bare house. He said he felt she was not sincere and was trying to harass the permit holder. 

ITEM B : Letter from Charles Ledogar, on behalf of Seth Charney, appellant requesting rehearing of 
Appeal No. 99-192, 1025 Minna Street. Hearing March 15, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Mclnemey, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to 
GRANT the permit. The Board then voted 5-0 to RESCIND the previous vote. Afterwards, upon motion jj 
by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum 
dissented) to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice 
President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to DENY the request for rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Charles Ledogar, agent for appellant, himself a tenant at 1020 Natoma, urged the Board 
to grant a rehearing , saying that anything that is built on the lot will impact the neighborhood. Hei 
showed photos of the area to illustrate his argument that the proposed project would block sunlight to the 
neighbors as well as the sky. He said he had a petition signed by all on the block, all tenants, and that 
the owners too were concerned. He said a rehearing was needed so they could get reasonable setbacks; 
for this harmonious residential enclave with wonderful greenery. 2. Yury Trubnikov, permit holder, asked 
the Board not to grant a rehearing as he had paid the City $20,000 in permit fees and that a 40 foot high' 
building was standard. He made four points and ended by saying his project met all City requirements. 1 
3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, reminded the Board that the project had beer 
approved with five or ten foot rear setbacks and that there had been no fire stairs in the rear on the plans 
when the Commission had reviewed it, but had been required by Building Inspection after Commission) 
review and the plans had not been sent back to Planning. 4. Todd Huntington, Chief Building Inspector 
DBI, said that Mr. Kornfield's testimony at the public hearing represented his department's position anq 
then he explained the purpose of Fire Code required fire escapes for the buildings so that occupantr 
could have access to the roof in an emergency, while firemen can access the building through its front for 
rescues. 

ITEM C : Letter from Christopher Cole, attorney for Barry Deutsch, appellant requesting rehearing o 
Appeal No. V00-014, 690 De Haro Street. Hearing March 15, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner E 
Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the variance on CONDITION that new language is added to th< 
variance decision as prepared by Larry Badiner for the Planning Department. 









ni inu mnarn avranT anan/io ttamc* \ A/itH roenor»t 



MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 12. 2000 



ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the request for 
rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Christopher Cole, attorney for appellant/requestor, said he believes the Board's decision 
violates the law and asked that a rehearing be granted, since the Board has no jurisdiction to approve 
projects in violation of the law. He submitted copies of pages of the transcript of the hearing with Mr. 
Kornfield's testimony. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that the variance 
granted in the case applied to the lots underneath the building and that with it approved the developer 
could work out the best solution for dealing with the existing building, with participation of the City and the 
neighbors. There has been no subdivision yet of the lot, but now that the application as well as building 
plans could proceed, with the concerns of the neighbors addressed. 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM D : Letter from Farid Dahbour, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit 
Application No. 9906116 issued to Rosa Vega to enclose existing storage, enclose furnace and water 
heater, install new washer/dryer closet, bathroom, wetbar, social room and bedroom (on first floor); and 
remove kitchen and dining area, renovate existing bedrooms, install new bathroom, lightwell, rear deck 
and stairs (second floor) at 381 Maynard Street. 

Date issued September 17, 1999 

Last day to appeal October 4, 1 999 

Request for jurisdiction March 24, 2000 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 1-4 (President 
Chin, Vice President Saunders, Commissioners Cullum and Mclnerney dissented) to grant jurisdiction. 
Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The request was DENIED. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Dawn Hassell, attorney for requestor, said that her client never had proper notice of the 
issuance of the subject permit and that he doesn't live next door to the building site, though he owns the 
adjacent lot at 377. She said the notice had been addressed to his sister Myrna, and she asked the 
Board to allow her client to file a late appeal. 2. Jose Gonzalez, agent for permit holder, urged the Board 
to not allow a late appeal since his client had followed all the rules and wanted to finish the project. He 
said the property had been posted with a 3' X 4' poster with the notice of the Planning Commission 
hearing, visible from the street. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said the 
Assessor's Records showed Farid Dahbour as the owner of the adjacent lot, and not Myrna Dahbour, 
with the date of transfer as April 9, 1996. 4. Todd Huntington, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that 
there was no returned mail notices in the file, indicating that the notices had gone through to the adjacent 
property owners as required for this type of permit. 

ITEM E : Letter from Joanne Polach, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit 
Application No. 9916252S issued to William Wong to construct a four-story three-dwelling unit building at 
2747-2749 Judah Street. 

Date issued March 1 1 , 2000 

Last day to appeal March 27, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction March 30, 2000 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, 
Commissioners El Qadah and Mclnerney dissented) to grant jurisdiction. Four votes are needed and the 
motion failed. The request was DENIED. 



MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. APRIL 12. 2000 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jerry Klein, agent for requestor, said that the plans failed to show his client's lightwell 
and that the Residential Design Guidelines required that such lightwells be accommodated by new 
construction. His client will lose ventilation because her lightwell is not faced with one on the proposed 
building. 2. Dan Sullivan, agent for permit holder, asked the Board to not allow a late appeal because his 
client had not tried to deceive here and that Mr. Klein had overstated the case. He said the process had 
been properly followed. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said usually that the 
planner reviewing the plans would have checked the Sanborn map and checked on any relevant light 
wells on abutting properties. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 99-200 

RALPH MAHER, Appellant [Revocation by the Taxicab Commission 

vs. [on December 9, 1999, of Taxicab 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [Medallion No. 734. 

[RESOLUTION NO. 71-99. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : RESCHEDULED to May 17, 2000 prior to hearing at request of appellant with agreement of 
Deputy City Attorney Tom Owen. 

Items f 5A) and (5B) were heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 98-136 

ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants [407 Connecticut Street. 

vs. [Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Demolish a Building. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9715365 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 98-137 

ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants [407 Connecticut Street. 

vs. [Denial on July 15, 1998, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (two dwelling units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9715364. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin 
and Commissioner Mclnemey dissented) to UPHOLD the department and DENY both permits. 






SPEAKERS : 1. President Chin explained the hearing process he intended to follow in this matter since al 
full public hearing had already been held for it and this further hearing was to evaluate the revised plans 
requested by the Board. 2. Andrew Zacks, attorney for appellants, explained the revisions made to the 
plans at the direction of the Board after the original two hour hearing. He said that Planning agrees tha' 
the plans now conform to the Residential Design Guidelines and that his clients would agree to all the 
minor changes still required by Planning. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, saic 
that three issues remained, that is, the width of the garage door, the stairs at the rear, and the height o 
the roof in the last ten feet of building depth. Public Comment against the Appellants: 4. Paul Minton 
adjacent property owner, said that he found several errors in plan dimension, with a four-foot discrepancy 
at issue. He opposed the revised plans because a fourth floor still remained and should be eliminated 
with the proposal still upsetting the area's open space pattern. 5. John deCastro of the Potrero Booster? 



ifiinn nr >t^u wnarn ovranT *a/-ionno it^nine* \ A/itH raor\r\r*+ 



MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. APRIL 12, 2000 

and other groups said the revised plans failed to be consistent with the Master Plan as to scale and 
density and that the appellants should not be rewarded after allowing the existing home to deteriorate. 
6. Philippe Fossier said that the Planning Commission and Robert Passmore had found the plans to be 
out of character with the neighborhood, and that this Board had agreed at its hearing in March 1999. 7. 
Patty Kong said she was a resident of Potrero Hill for nine years and asked the Board to preserve the 
existing house on the site with two units in it if wanted by the appellants. The proposed house with four 
stories she felt was out of scale, but with three stories would be acceptable. 8. Steve Hettenbach, co- 
owner of an adjacent property, said that the existing building should be rehabilitated. 9. Maria Cristini 
gave an analysis of the subject property's value with a house on it and as a vacant lot. She said the 
owners could sell the existing house and still make a good return without any loss of character to the 
neighborhood. She opposed the four story revised plans. 10. Peter Walbridge said he was opposed to 
the demolition permit. He said he tried to buy the house but now could not afford it. He asked the Board 
to not reward owners who had a history of neglecting this house. 11. Ellen Kernaghan, e member of the 
Potrero Hill Neighborhood Association Board, said she supported all the points others had made and that 
she thought the issues were scale, mass and coverage. 12. Jean Neblett, a member of the Boosters, 
said there were errors on the plans and the revisions do not meet the requirements of Mary Gallagher's 
letter of December 1999. She asked the Board to disapprove the plans. 13. Joe Headlen said he lives 
across the street and asked for hands of those in the audience in opposition to the project. Several 
dozen people raised their hands. 14. Michael McCone said he lives on Missouri Street and the owners' 
deliberate trashing of the house was terrible and asked the Commission's disapproval be upheld. 15. Art 
Agnos, a resident of the Hill and former mayor, submitted a flyer concerning the project by Ford Real 
Estate and urged the Board to uphold the denial and keep the existing house which he felt was beautiful. 
16. Roberta Callahan, on the Hill since 1980, said allowing a demolition was the wrong way and that if 
the house were restored the appellants would still make much money. 17. Luther Greulich, a contractor, 
said fabulous things can be done in remodeling an old house. He said that the project be kept in scale 
and limited to two stories over garage. 18. Stephen Williams, formerly the attorney for the neighbors, 
objected to the abuse of the process by the appellants. Public Comment for the Appellants: 19. Chris 
Beckman, a resident of the Hill for 27 years, said he bought there for his retirement and then the City 
changed the zoning from RH-3 to RH-2. He said he favors people investing in property for their 
retirement so long as they follow the rules. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 99-035 

LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant [2234-2236 Francisco Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on November 12, 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [1998, to John and Evelyn Schiappaca- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [sse, permit to Alter a Building (remove 

[walls to provide parking spaces and 

[remove daycare facility). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9823286. 

[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARGH 18, 

[1999. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the 
matter to May 24, 2000 since the variance decision has not yet been issued. 

SPEAKER : 1. Lawrence Alioto, attorney for appellant, reported that no variance decision has been 
issued yet and requested that the appeal be continued. 2. Andrew Zacks, attorney for the permit holders, 
opposed a continuance and asked the Board to deny the appeal. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of 
Neighborhood Planning, PD, said the variance would be issued in 2 weeks. 



MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. APRIL 12. 2000 

Items (7A) and (7B) were be heard together 

(7A) APPEAL NO. 99-120 

DANIEL WEAVER, Appellant [236 Vernon Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 27, 1999, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Chung Kit Chan, permit to Erect a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (single-family dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9906307S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT 
the permit with FINDINGS. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Daniel Weaver, appellant and Vice-President of OMI Community Action Organization, 
said he never received the paperwork for these two proposed houses and that the Planning staff had 
informed him too late of the shadow study so that he could not ask for Discretionary Review at the 
Planning Commission. He described the park next to the site and its native species. He asked that the 
permits be disapproved. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the shadow 
requirements in the Code which do not apply to under 40-foot height districts, as here. 3. Dan Sullivan, 
agent for the permit holder, said the plans complied with all Codes and should be upheld. He said 
housing was as significant as plant life. Public Comment for the Appellant: 4. Peter Vaernet said that 
the Open Space Committee had funds for only four lots and not for these two. He then showed a photo 
of the lots. He said the neighborhood works hard on this green space and if he had been given notice he 
would have rallied to get the Committee to add these two lots to the park. 5. Regina Blosser of the OMI 
Neighbors in Action said they tried to have these lots bought for park use, but the funds ran out. Showed 
photos of blighted vacant lots in the area for sale for development. Timing has been terrible for these two 
lots. She hopes a private donor will buy one and the Committee the other. 6. Irma Marx, an educator, 
said the Ingleside District has gone from a devastated area to a nice neighborhood through their efforts. 
This park is needed to teach under-privileged children about natural history. 7. Doug Dorn lives at 
Ralston and Sargent and opposes this project because it is by an out-of-area developer. Board is 
needed to give neighbors a chance. 8. Robert McDonald, Park Planner/Project Manager, Recreation and 
Park Department, said he is working with the developer who will need an encroachment permit for his 
construction project. He does not object to the permits. The Open Space Committee will continue to try 
to buy the lots and the Planning Commission will meet with the Recreation and Park Commission in late 
May and may discuss this possible open space site and purchase from the developer. 

(7B) APPEAL NO. 99-148 

DANIEL WEAVER, Appellant [238 Vernon Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on September 1, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [1999, to Chung Kit Chan, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (two-story single family 



[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9906306S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT 
the permit with FINDINGS. 

SPEAKERS : Same as Item 7(A). 









naiica iiiriunii-iinn ni m» r-iriiarn OYr'onT anonrla itome \A/itl-i racr\ar*t 



MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. APRIL 12, 2000 

(8) APPEAL NO. 00-033 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE [2701 - 16 th Street. 

GROWTH, Appellant [Protesting issuance on February 18, 

vs. [2000, to Union Property Capital Inc., 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [permit to Alter a Building (renovation of 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [shell and core of an existing three-story 

[building and addition of new fourth floor 
[within existing building envelope; work 
[includes seismic upgrade, new 
[accessible entry, stairs, elevators and 
jrestrooms). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9926975. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner 
Cullum dissented) to GRANT the permit with NO CONDITIONS, and minutes later, the Board voted 5-0 
to RESCIND the previous vote. Afterwards, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to 
GRANT the permit with NO CONDITIONS, with FINDINGS. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, said that there are three issues here. The first is the 
need for implementation of the First Source Hiring Program and the developer has agreed to it. The 
second is the need to impose a springing affordable housing fee to become operable once the City has 
enacted new legislation that requires the payment of such a fee for this kind of project, similar to the 
Bryant Square project at the Planning Commission. Also a springing fee for transit to support MUNI. She 
felt the environmental review cavalierly skirts the density of the project and that not enough parking is 
being required. 2. Timothy Tosta, attorney for permit holder, said that there are meetings going on about 
proposed legislation to create fees for such projects but until enacted projects should be approved 
without conditions. He distinguished Bryant Square from the subject project, and explained why this 
project is categorically exempt from environmental review. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood 
Planning, PD, admitted that the permit should have been stamped with a First Source Hiring Program 
condition but said the developer had agreed to do it and it was required by the law. He said the fee 
legislation was at the very beginning of the process with studies and hearings to be coming along to 
cover the multi-media industry. Public Comment for the Appellant: 4. John deCastro of the Potrero 
Hill Boosters said this site is at the edge of the transit zone. The buses serving the area are already 
crowded and a springing transit fee condition was appropriate because of the need for more transit 
service on Potrero Hill. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: 5. Rev. Arnold Townsend said he is 
working with the tenant for this building who is seeking employees from ethnic communities of the City 
and he urged the Board to uphold the permit. 

APPEAL NO. V00-030 

LAURENCE ARNOLD, Appellant [431 6 - 23 rd Street. 

vs. [Denial on February 17, 2000, of Rear 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Yard Variance (remove the existing 

[deck and stairs and construct a new 
[breakfast room with multi-level decks 
[and stairs to an existing three-story- 
[over-garage, single-family dwelling). 
[APPLICATION NO. 991 271 9S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner 
Mclnemey dissented) to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator and GRANT the variance with FINDINGS. 



MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 12. 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, explained that the variance was denied 
because it was felt there was room within the house to provide the new space without needing a variance 
and there was no hardship here to justify the variance. 2. Mark Brand, agent for appellant, said that this 
is a small variance that Mr. Passmore would probably have approved in his day and that the neighbors 
did not object and the result was an improvement in the look of the house as well as amenities for the 
owner, with the extraordinary front setback being the special circumstance justifying the variance. He 
used an illustration to show the visual improvement proposed. No Public Comment. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-032 



DAVID BAKER & JANE MARTIN, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[337-339 Shotwell Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated February 16, 2000 that 
[denies request to designate combined 
[office and storage Limited Commercial 
[Use space as one commercial space; 
[denies request that the apartment area 
[be 375 s.f.; denies request that the 
[stables/carriage house footprint be 
[reduced to its original dimensions of 
[approximately 20 x 25 feet; and denies 
[request that the stable/carriage house be 
[used as a workshop. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the 
matter to May 24, 2000 to allow for a site visit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the determination and its 
history and how the LCU had to stay as is or the property must conform to the zoning. 2. Jane Martin, 
co-Appellant, explained how they wanted to use the building and recreate the building at the rear of the 
property as a workshop as part of their architectural practice and their residence above the architecture 
office in the front building with no separation into office and storage as Planning wants, and with a proper 
rear yard for the first time between the two buildings. 3. David Baker, co-appellant, said they were asking 
for a larger rear yard than the Code requires. 4. Todd Huntington, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that 
there could be other issues once plans get to DBI for review involving a passageway to the rear building 
if it's a workshop, and a need for new firewalls to separate living areas from other areas. No Public 
Comment. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. 





Government Information Center Arnold>jK. Chin, President, 
S.F. Public Library 
Main Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 

Robert H. FeHdmarUExecutive Secretary 




Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991 . 



8 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

^ s * 



WEDNESDAY. APRIL 26. 2000 
*/*> 5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL. ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STRFFT ) 



(1 ) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

(3) REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD: 

ITEM A : 123 Molimo Drive. Letter from Hans Kielkopf, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over 
Building Permit Application No. 9826426 issued to David and Constance Baker-Cohn for construction of 
a rear horizontal one-story addition consisting of a roof deck, bedroom, bathroom and study. 

Date issued October 26, 1999 

Last day to appeal November 1 0, 1 999 

Request for jurisdiction April 12,2000 

ITEM B : 381 Douglass Street. Letter from Brad Anthony DeYoung, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9804634 issued to Tom Simrock to build an additional 
two stories above an existing basement floor. 

Date issued October 18, 1999 

Last day to appeal November 2, 1 999 

Request for jurisdiction April 12, 2000 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-036 

MATTHEW WONG, Appellant [Revocation on March 2, 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion No. 942. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 200-17. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-159 

HERMAN & JANE ABELSON, Appellants [1 970 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated September 24, 1999 that 

[the proposed screened off-street 

[parking space in front of the subject 

[property is not permitted under Planning 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. [Code Section 132(b) which requires a 



[13-foot front setback, unless a variance 

ADD -> i 9nnn t is sou 9 ht and granted. 

AH* I \ txm [APPLICATION NO. 9918712. 

SAN FRANCISCO [F0R FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

PUBLiC LIBRARY 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 26. 2000 - PAGE 2 



(6) 



PAMELA CALLOWAY, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



APPEAL NO. 00-035 

[127 Moffitt Street. 



[Denial on March 10, 2000, of permit to 
[Alter a Building (two-story rear addition 
[to existing two-story house; new rear 
[deck; remodel existing bath; expand 
[existing bedroom at ground floor). 
[APPLICATION NO. 990791 2S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 99-166 



HAL LEININGER, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1920 Golden Gate Avenue. 
[Protesting issuance on October 8, 1999, 
[to Thomas and Susan Bernard, permit 
[to Alter a Building (to complete work 
[started under PA #8404649 and 
[extended under PA #8805005; remove 
[two walls, one parapet wall, and 
[firewall). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9921351. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (8A) and (8B) shall be heard together 



(8A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-025 



DARLENE CRISP, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



[1508 Church Street. 

[Protesting issuance on February 15, 

[2000, to Metropolitan Community 

[Church, permit to Alter a Building (install 

[kitchen cabinets and sink; grab bars in 

[restrooms and new lavatory; new 36" 

[door and frame; demoiition of fiberglass 

[skylight). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/10/1492. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-027 



DARLENE CRISP, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1508 Church Street. 

[Protesting issuance on February 22, 

[2000, to Metropolitan Community 

[Church, permit to Alter a Building (add 

[temporary handicapped ramp in front of 

[building). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/15/2004. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-034 






LAWRENCE & BODIL FOX, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[186 Maynard Street. 
[Protesting issuance on February 24, 
[2000, to Efren Valasco, permit to Alter a 
[Building (35-foot horizontal addition). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9912628S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-038 



CHARLES & LINDA LEWIS, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



[738 Elizabeth Street. 
[Protesting issuance on March 1, 2000, 
[to Jeffrey Goffo, permit to Alter a 
[Building (change skylight locations; 
[reinforce existing floor joists with double 
[joist hangers and machine bolts in floor 
[of master bedroom). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/01/3127. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 26. 2000 - PAGE 3 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. V00-037 



WADE VAN VALIN, PAUL & KELLY GVILDYS, 

Appellants 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[639 Shotwell Street. 

[Denial on March 6, 2000, of Rear Yard 

[Variance (legalize construction of a one- 

[story addition and allow the construction 

[of a rear stair that encroaches 

[approximately six feet in the required 

[rear yard). 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.805V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(12) 



APPEAL NO. 00-039 



BARBARA LaTOUR, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[3 Montague Place. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated March 2, 2000 addressed to 
[Paulette Taggart that the proposed 
[project (BPA No. 991 2721 S) does not 
[need a variance as it complies with the 
[Planning Code and does not violate the 
[conditions stated in the Notice of 
[Special Restrictions No. G541538. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1 . Appellant's statement and rebuttal bhef. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal bhef. 

3. Department decision, perniit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeai/index.htmi. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherin 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader durir 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relate 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In ord 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remind* 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City 
accommodate these individuals. 



The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MU 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Mark 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessifc 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across P( 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the pub 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct t 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people a 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francis 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Te 
Force: Rachel Arnstine O'Hara, Clerk, City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S 
Francisco, CA 94102-4683, telephone (415) 554-6171, fax (415) 554-6177, and e-rr 
Rachel_ArnstineO'Hara@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from 1 
Clerk of the Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individu 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that tr 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.5: 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pies 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



SF- Publ l C in?or ar Center 
Government inTor 

Dept. 41 



.MINUTES OF THE 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

I to DOCUMENTS DEPT 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2000 

MAY - 5 2000 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 OHIrn 
' ' SAN FRANCISCO 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POL^fflteSH RY 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice-President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah and Commissioner John Mclnerney, who arrived late at 6:29 p.m. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning 
Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert 
Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

Vanji McGonegal, substitute for Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those 
who intended to testify during the meeting. 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Mark Grueber, United Taxicab Workers, urged the Board to uphold suspensions and 
revocations of taxicab medallions by the Taxicab Commission and not to grant continuances of hearing 
dates to appellants who earn $1800 or more a month from medallions. 2. Jeremy Paul urged the Board 
to disregard the letter requesting the Board to amend its finding in Appeal No. 00-018 sent by the 
attorney for the neighbors for the reason that the ulterior motive is to support future litigation. He felt the 
Board's decision was a good compromise meant to satisfy both sides and its findings should stay as 
issued. 3. Dana Kueffner asked about Item 12 which had been withdrawn prior to the meeting.* 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKER : 1. President Chin apologized for being late due to a court appearance. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD: 

ITEM A : 123 Molimo Drive. Letter from Hans Kielkopf, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over 
Building Permit Application No. 9826426 issued to David and Constance Baker-Cohn for construction a 
rear horizontal one-story addition consisting of a roof deck, bedroom, bathroom and study. 



I V J UOJUl II IV^ \_/ UT ^ *-- ' 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 26, 2000 

Date issued October 26, 1999 

Last day to appeal November 10, 1999 

Request for jurisdiction April 12, 2000 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnerney was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction and declare the matter moot because the 
subject permit had expired. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported on his meeting with the 
requestor and the permit holder and summarized their positions and the history of the subject permit 
which appears to have expired. He also described the City's process in cases of violations of Codes and 
abatement actions. 2. Hans Kielkopf, jurisdiction requestor, said he would withdraw his request if the 
permit had expired. 3. David Baker-Cohn, permit holder, said he and his architect were going to file a 
new application, moving the house four feet away from the common property line, with the intention of 
reaching an agreement with the requestor and that he had spent thousands on revised plans with that in 
mind. 

ITEM B : 381 Douglass Street. Letter from Brad Anthony DeYoung, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9804634 issued to Tom Simrock to build an additional 
two stories above an existing basement floor. 

Date issued October 18, 1999 

Last day to appeal November 2, 1999 

Request for jurisdiction April 12, 2000 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnerney was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Christopher Moscone, attorney for certain neighbors of the subject property, described 
the rooftop penthouse which his clients find objectionable and which he alleged did not appear on the 
plans reviewed earlier by the Board. He said 37 people had not received proper Section 311 notice of 
the revised plans. 2. Tom Simrock, permit holder, reported on the progress of construction, saying that 
siding is now being installed on the house which is far into the construction process, and that the October 
revised plans did show the stairwell penthouse now being objected to. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of 
Neighborhood Planning, PD, reported that the Section 311 notice drawings showed the stairwell 
penthouse, showing the plans to the Board. He said no second 311 notice had been sent out because 
the revisions weren't considered significant. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-036 

MATTHEW WONG, Appellant [Revocation on March 2, 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion No. 942. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 200-17. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Mclnerney was 
absent) to RESCHEDULE this case to May 17, 2000. 

SPEAKERS: None. 






< «-»i »-»^ i i r 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 26, 2000 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-159 

HERMAN & JANE ABELSON, Appellants [1 970 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated September 24, 1999 that 

[the proposed screened off-street 
[parking space in front of the subject 
[property is not permitted under Planning 
[Code Section 132(b) which requires a 
[13-foot front setback, unless a variance 
[is sought and granted. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9918712. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Mclnemey was absent) 
to CONTINUE this case to May 3, 2000. 

SPEAKER : 1. The Executive Secretary explained that the variance decision had not been issued yet. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-035 

PAMELA CALLOWAY, Appellant [1 27 Moffitt Street. 

vs. [Denial on March 10, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Alter a Building (two-story rear addition 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [to existing two-story house; new rear 

[deck; remodel existing bath; expand 

[existing bedroom at ground floor). 

[APPLICATION NO. 990791 2S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to 
OVERRULE the Planning Department and GRANT the permit for the original 12' addition, with 
FINDINGS. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, described the discretionary 
review process in this case and the critical issue of the projection into the rear of twelve feet rejected by 
the Planning Commission which wanted the addition to match the adjacent property so as to not be an 
intrusion into the rear open space and out of character. They have approved the requested ground 
floor addition. 2. James Valenti, agent for appellant, described the heavily forested slope behind the 
house and the many revisions made to the plans for the proposed expansion to a very small house. 
Public Comment in Support of the Department: 3. Nameeta Tolia-Henbest of 125 Moffitt explained 
her objections to the scale of the top part of the proposed addition which she alleged will box in her 
property. She said the small changes required by the Commission were not important but the upper 
floor addition was her main concern. 4. Greg Helser said the proposed addition would increase the 
house by 53%, making it not in keeping with the neighboring small houses. He had added on to his 
house in 1995 very modestly and thought the permit holder should do the same, so as to maintain the 
open space and comply with the Residential Design Guidelines. 5. Carrie Helser explained that the 
property at 121 Moffitt had been extended in 1970 long before the adoption of the Residential Design 
Guidelines and could not be approved today. She said the neighbors did not have the means to 
expand their houses as the permit holder proposed to do. Public Comment for the Appellant: 
6. Emanuel Meilak asked rhetorically what air are we blocking? 



hi n .-»."■» i .-^ i iiic: vjiiw o L.iiuuu iw i-.w\^v*. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 26, 2000 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 99-166 



HAL LEININGER, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1920 Golden Gate Avenue. 

[Protesting issuance on October 8, 1999, 

[to Thomas and Susan Bernard, permit 

[to Alter a Building (to complete work 

[started under PA #8404649 and 

[extended under PA #8805005; remove 

[two walls, one parapet wall, and 

[firewall). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9921351. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to REVOKE 
the permit, with FINDINGS stated on the record. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Hal Leininger, appellant, explained his objections to the portion of the remodeling 
which exceeds the height limit and has been going on since 1984. 2. Thomas Bernard, permit holder, 
said he grossly misunderstood what he had applied for and that he wanted to abandon this permit and 
with an architect apply for a new one that would satisfy the City Codes and bring his house into 
compliance. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, agreed with the permit holder's 
position since the current permit does not satisfy the Notice of Violations issued for the project in 
October 1999. 4. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that the addition appeared 
to exceed the height limit and he described the gently up-sloping property and the method of height 
measurement under these circumstances. 



Items (8A) and (8B) shall be heard together 



(8A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-025 



DARLENE CRISP, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



[1508 Church Street. 

[Protesting issuance on February 15, 

[2000, to Metropolitan Community 

[Church, permit to Alter a Building (install 

[kitchen cabinets and sink; grab bars in 

[restrooms and new lavatory; new 36" 

[door and frame; demolition of fiberglass 

[skylight). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/10/1492. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This appeal was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 



(8B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-027 



DARLENE CRISP, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1508 Church Street. 

[Protesting issuance on February 22, 

[2000, to Metropolitan Community 

[Church, permit to Alter a Building (add 

[temporary handicapped ramp in front of 

[building). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/15/2004. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This appeal was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 






I I I Ml MVI t r 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 26, 2000 

(9) APPEAL NO. 00-034 

LAWRENCE & BODIL FOX, Appellants [1 86 Maynard Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on February 24, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to Efren Valasco, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (35-foot horizontal addition). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9912628S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This appeal was WITHDRAWN by the appellants prior to hearing. 

(10) APPEAL NO. 00-038 

CHARLES & LINDA LEWIS, Appellants [738 Elizabeth Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on March 1, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Jeffrey Goffo, permit to Alter a 

[Building (change skylight locations; 
[reinforce existing floor joists with double 
[joist hangers and machine bolts in floor 
[of master bedroom). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/01/3127. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

A CTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD 
the Department of Building Inspection and GRANT the permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Linda Lewis, co-appellant, explained her objection to the skylights which cause glare 
many hours each day for her. She asked how could the skylight permit be approved for installation on 
a kitchen that was built without a permit. She said the permit holders had fooled the Planning staff and 
the plans show smaller windows than what has been installed and is different, reversed, placement. 
2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, explained the 3/12 pitch of these particular 
skylights and that they could not be operable if laid flat. The Building Code does not have stringent 
regulations for skylights which are considered minor under the Code. 3. Lisa Nicol, wife of the permit 
holder, explained the project and the efforts made to ameliorate the glare from the skylights, although 
she thought the objection to the permit had to do with an earlier permit battle over the appellants' permit 
for a deck which had been denied by the City. No Public Comment. 

(11) APPEAL NO. V00-037 

WADE VAN VALIN, PAUL & KELLY GVILDYS, [639 Shotwell Street. 

Appellants [Denial on March 6, 2000, of Rear Yard 

vs. [Variance (legalize construction of a^one- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [story addition and allow the construction 

[of a rear stair that encroaches 
[approximately six feet in the required 
[rear yard). 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.805V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This appeal was RESCHEDULED to May 24, 2000 prior to hearing. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, APRIL 26. 2000 

(12) APPEAL NO. 00-039 

BARBARA LaTOUR, Appellant [3 Montague Place. 

vs. [Zoning Administrator determination 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [dated March 2, 2000 addressed to 

[Paulette Taggart that the proposed 
[project (BPA No. 991 2721 S) does not 
[need a variance as it complies with the 
[Planning Code and does not violate the 
[conditions stated in the Notice of 
[Special Restrictions No. G541538. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This appeal was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m 





Arnold YJ<. Chin, President 
Rooert H. FeldmanrEixecutive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 



Ma,n Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn. Terry Gwiazdowsky 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

uuuuiVItl^ DEPT, 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000 

3/co << MAY 1 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1 ) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest tc 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respec 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in th( 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing a 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, you 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated the 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to anothe 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

(3) CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS AND REPORT BY DBI ON PROGRESS OF PROJECT : 38 Wee 

Clay Street. Appeal No. 98-212 heard on July 14, 1999. Rainer and Beatrice Baldauf, appellants, an 
DeLeys Brandman, permit holder (Application No. 9824371). Board upheld permit on condition th 
permit holder revise plans to vent the kitchen range on the roof and close up the side wall vent, wit 
appellants to pay 55% of the necessary and reasonable costs up to $5,500. 

(4) STATUS REPORT ON CHAT CAFE : 598 Sanchez Street. Appeals 98-035 and 99-197 scheduled fc 
further hearing on July 12, 2000. 

(5) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : 700 Great Highway, #2. Letter from Hoc Nguyen, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal N( 
99-051 heard on March 1, 2000. Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 t 
UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator's request for suspension of building permit for noncompliance wit 
guidelines approved by the Planning Commission for installation of 22 windows on the north and west ( 
the building. 

ITEM B : 1844 Greenwich Street. Letter from Ray J. Martinelli, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appe; 
No. 00-026 (heard on April 5, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 t 
UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit on CONDITION that white reflective material/paint b 
used in the subject property light well. 

ITEM C : 236-238 Vernon Street. Letter from Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning for th 
Planning Department, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 99-120 and 99-148 heard on April 12, 200( 
Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRAN 
the permits with findings. 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION : 

ITEM D : 924 Church Street. Letter from Gilbert Smolin and Stephen Johnson requesting that the Boar 
take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/02/25/2866 issued to Ora Hatheway to inste 
clearstory windows at wall on north elevation lot line. 

Date issued March 24, 2000 

Last day to appeal April 10, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction April 20, 2000 

(6) CONSENT ITEM : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to 
vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provide 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 3. 2000 - PAGE 2 



(A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-044 



SUE WONG, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1851 -31 st Avenue. 

[Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

[on March 31, 2000. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/24/2681 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-055 



STEVEN D. LEWIS, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[4138-4140 20 th Street. 

[Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

[on April 14, 2000. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/28/5679. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(C) 



APPEAL NO. 00-063 



ROGER HSU, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1674 -22 nd Avenue. 
[Imposition of Penalty on April 21, 2000. 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/25/2841 . 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 99-159 



HERMAN & JANE ABELSON, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[1970 Jackson Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated September 24, 1999 that 
[the proposed screened off-street 
[parking space in front of the subject 
[property is not permitted under Planning 
[Code Section 132(b) which requires a 
[13-foot front setback, unless a variance 
[is sought and granted. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9918712. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-050 



WHOLE FOODS, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[1765 California Street. 
[Denial on March 30, 2000, of permit to 
[Erect a Sign (relocate direct illuminated 
[double-faced electric wall sign). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/18/2315. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-029 



ELIZABETH COLLET, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[3015 Washington Street. 

[Denial on February 11, 2000, of permit 

[to Alter a Building (construct new wood 

[frame deck at rear yard approx. 8'-6" 

[above grade; add new French doors to 

[deck from house; deck lighting and 

[fountain). 

[APPLICATION NO. 991 271 9S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-040 



JACQUELINE STAVI, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



[304 Eureka Street. 

[Protesting issuance on March 10, 2000, 
[to Andrew and Kathleen Lomas, permit 
[to Alter a Building (remove existing non- 
[complying stair and replace with 
[complying stair; smoke detectors). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/10/4097. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 3, 2000 - PAGE 3 

Items (11 A) and (11B) shall be heard together 

(11 A) APPEAL NO. 00-042 

JAMES McLEMORE & MALLUN BREEDLOVE- [738 Capitol Avenue. 

McLEMORE, Appellants [Protesting issuance on March 13, 2000, 

vs. [to Jose Murillo, permit to Erect a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (three-story single-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9802877. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(11B) APPEAL NO. 00-043 

TAKEMI TOTES, Appellant ~" [738 Capitol Avenue. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on March 13, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Jose Murillo, permit to Erect a 

[Building (three-story single-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9802877. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(12) APPEAL NO. V00-041 

ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants [2090 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 
[garage and one-story building addition 
[in the required yard of a single family 
[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denia, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or pers 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for th 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven mini 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed sev 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may requesl 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to tr 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the d 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer i 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Bo« 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1< 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the schedi 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written commei 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of i 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Boan 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raise* 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Boanli 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 



Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present inn 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant pi I 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and ma>b 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 






ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catheri 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possib 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader duni 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relal 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In on 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remind 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible Ml 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Mar 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI access! 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across P 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the pub 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people c 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francis 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance T< 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-n 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. 



LOBBYING ACTIVITY 






The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individu 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that tt 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.5 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pies 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 s p pubUc ubrary 

(415)575-6880 Government Infor. Center 

Larkin/Grove Sts. 
Dept. 41 



3 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAY I 1 2X3 

MINUTES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO 

' PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

l . F >7 

co 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000 

T 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice-President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, and 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; 
Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, 
Executive Secretary for the Board. 

ABSENT : Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Vanji McGonegal, substitute for Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those 
who intended to testify during the meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKER : 1. Patricia McColm requested that the Board set aside its rules and allow her to file a second 
request for rehearing for Appeal No. 00-006 decided March 1, 2000, rehearing request denied April 12, 
2000. She also asked the Board to order the Executive Secretary to prepare the administrative record for 
her which he wrote her he would not do without her submitting evidence the court has permitted her to 
file an action in this matter. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKER : 1. President Chin and the Board congratulated Mr. Badiner on his appointment as Zoning 
Administrator. [NO MOTIONS WERE MADE REGARDING THE ABOVE] 

(3) CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS AND REPORT BY DBI ON PROGRESS OF PROJECT : 38 West 
Clay Street. Appeal No. 98-212 heard on July 14, 1999. Rainer and Beatrice Baldauf, appellants, and 
DeLeys Brandman, permit holder (Application No. 9824371). Board upheld permit on condition the 
permit holder revise plans to vent the kitchen range on the roof and close up the side wall vent, with 
appellants to pay 55% of the necessary and reasonable costs up to $5,500. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported on the progress of the permit 
application for moving the side kitchen vent to the roof of 38 West Clay Street, Appeal No. 98-212. The 
permit has been approved and is ready for issuance. 2. Alice Suet Yee Barkley, attorney for appellants 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 3. 2000 

in Appeal 98-212, reported that the roof vent has been installed already and that her clients were 
prepared to pay their share of the costs as soon as invoices are sent to them. 3. President Chin 
requested that the Chief Building Inspector visit the site and report at a future meeting to the Board on 
compliance of the vent system with the Board's order and with the Building Code. 

(4) STATUS REPORT ON CHAT CAFE : 598 Sanchez Street. Appeals 98-035 and 99-197 scheduled for 
further hearing on July 12, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Michael Crawford and Tom Hanus, proprietors of Chat Cafe at 598 Sanchez Street, 
Appeal Nos. 98-035 and 990197 to be heard for further hearing July 12, 2000, reported on their situation 
as requested by the Board. They reported their business is being supported by their neighborhood and 
that Supervisor Leno was considering legislation that could be supportive. 2. President Chin requested 
that the two appeals be continued to October 11, 2000, and he asked that a letter be prepared for his 
signature requesting that the relevant departments continue their cooperation with these appeals until the 
Board acts or legislation is enacted that cures the problems. 

(5) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 
REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : 700 Great Highway, #2. Letter from Hoc Nguyen, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 
99-051 heard on March 1, 2000. Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to 
UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator's request for suspension of building permit for noncompliance with 
guidelines approved by the Planning Commission for installation of 22 windows on the north and west of 
the building. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnerney was absent) to DENY the Request for Rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Hoc Nguyen, appellant/requestor, requested that the Board grant him a rehearing to 
allow him to reargue his case since he feels the facts were hazy to the Board after the long period 
between the first hearing and the final decision. He said he feels he has a solution that will be acceptable 
to all parties, involving shades to minimize the tint. 2. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, urged the 
Board not to grant the request as the time has come for the appellant to comply with the Notice of Special 
Restrictions and the conditions adopted by the Planning Commission for the project. He said there was 
no new evidence being presented that would justify another hearing. 

ITEM B : 1844 Greenwich Street. Letter from Ray J. Martelli, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal 
No. 00-026 heard on April 5, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to 
UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit on CONDITION that white reflective material/paint be 
used in the subject property light well. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnerney was absent) to DENY the Request for Rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Ray Martelli, appellant, requested a rehearing so that a revision of the proposed plans 
can be agreed to, and that he would agree to pay a portion of the cost so a light well could be created. 
He suggested a process for arriving at a fair price for such work involving several contractors' bids. 
2. Jamil Harb, permit holder, urged the Board not to grant a rehearing in the matter since he has been 
held up two years in seeking this permit and there is no new evidence to justify a second hearing. 






i 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 3, 2000 



ITEM C : 236-238 Vernon Street. Letter from Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning for the 
Planning Department, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 99-120 and 99-148 heard on April 12, 2000. 
Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT 
the permits with findings. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner 
Mclnemey was absent, and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to DENY both Requests for Rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, requested a rehearing for these two appeals 
because of his belief that interested groups had not had notice of the Planning Commission hearing, 
although the record showed that property owners had proper notice. In the future he said he would have 
mailings corroborated with affidavits by the staff for the record. 2. Dan Sullivan agent for permit holder, 
urged the Board not to grant a rehearing for three reasons. First, any notice to groups was done by the 
City, and the permit holder, having acted in good faith, should not have to suffer for such error. Second, 
there was constructive notice to all groups from several departments over the course of months of review. 
Third, the issue here is whether the lots should be made part of the adjacent park and the Planning 
Commission will address the question on May 4 th . If the General Plan is amended to include these lots 
as park land then the City can purchase them for such use from his client. 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION : 

ITEM D : 924 Church Street. Letter from Gilbert Smolin and Stephen Johnson requesting that the Board 
take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/02/25/2866 issued to Ora Hatheway to install 
clearstory windows at wall on north elevation lot line. 

Date issued March 24, 2000 

Last day to appeal April 10, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction April 20, 2000 

ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the requestors. 



(6) CONSENT ITEM : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to a 
vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal. 

(6A) APPEAL NO. 00-044 

SUE WONG, Appellant [1851 -31 st Avenue. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on March 31, 2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/24/2681 . 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to REDUCE the penalty 
to two (2) times the regular fee. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Wong, appellant, reported that the work had been done so that her disabled elderly 
parents could prepare their food at their ground level space since they can't come up the stairs anymore 
to use the kitchen. 2. Laurence Komfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported on his review of the 
case with the District Inspector. 

3 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 3, 2000 



(6B) APPEAL NO. 00-055 

STEVEN D. LEWIS, Appellant [4138-4140 20 th Street. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on April 14, 2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/28/5679. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnerney was absent) to REDUCE the penalty to two (2) times the regular fee. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Steven Lewis, appellant/owner, described the work done by his out-of-town contractor 
who failed to obtain a permit. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said there were no 
major safety issues here and that he felt the appellant could gain redress in small claims court against the 
contractor. 



(6C) APPEAL NO. 00-063 

ROGER HSU, Appellant [1674 - 22 nd Avenue. 

vs. [Imposition of Penalty on April 21 , 2000. 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/25/2841. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Vice-President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 
(Commissioner Mclnerney was absent) to REDUCE the penalty to two (2) times the regular fee. 

SPEAKERS : 1. None. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 99-159 

HERMAN & JANE ABELSON, Appellants [1970 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated September 24, 1999 that 

[the proposed screened off-street 
[parking space in front of the subject 
[property is not permitted under Planning 
[Code Section 132(b) which requires a 
[13-foot front setback, unless a variance 
[is sought and granted. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9918712. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellants prior to hearing. 

(8) APPEAL NO. 00-050 

WHOLE FOODS, Appellant [1 765 California Street. 

vs. [Denial on March 30, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Sign (relocate direct illuminated 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [double-faced electric wall sign). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/18/2315. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnerney was absent) to UPHOLD the Planning Department's denial of the subject permit. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 3, 2000 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained the 24 foot height limit in the Planning 
Code and the sloped street frontage of the site which allowed for other places under 24 feet for sign 
locations. He said trees blocking the sign now will grow and will block higher location, too. 2. Steve 
Peterson, of Ad Art, for Whole Foods, the appellant, said the higher sign was needed so people could 
see where the garage entry is. Presently trucks parked along the curb and street trees block drivers' 
view of the entry sign. 

(9) APPEAL NO. 00-029 

ELIZABETH COLLET, Appellant [301 5 Washington Street. 

vs. [Denial on February 11, 2000, of permit 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (construct new wood 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [frame deck at rear yard approx. 8'-6" 

[above grade; add new French doors to 

[deck from house; deck lighting and 

[fountain). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9912719S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This appeal was RESCHEDULED to May 17, 2000 prior to this meeting. 

(10) APPEAL NO. 00-040 

JACQUELINE STAVI, Appellant [304 Eureka Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on March 10, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Andrew and Kathleen Lomas, permit 

[to Alter a Building (remove existing non- 
[complying stair and replace with 
[complying stair; smoke detectors). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/10/4097. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnerney was absent) to CONTINUE the case to May 31, 2000 and to CLOSE the public testimony. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported that he had spoken to 
Inspector Tom Corlett who visited the site in 1997 and reported for the Condo Conversion Application, an 
area in which he is an expert. The owner then was J. Stavi. 2. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, 
noted that the Assessor's records indicate the owner of the property as J. Stavi. 3. Jacqueline Stavi, 
appellant/property owner, said that she had not authorized this permit application and she asked the 
Board to disapprove it. 4. Andrew Lomas, permit holder and tenant, said he was at a loss at why he was 
here since the owner had consented to this permit which is to correct violations. He said he intended to 
purchase this unit once condo conversions are completed and that there is on-going litigation between 
him and Ms. Stavi. 5. Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, said that she was confused but believes that 
the owner authorized the filing of this permit and now is revoking that consent. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MAY 3. 2000 

Items (11 A) and (11B) were heard together 

(11A) APPEAL NO. 00-042 

JAMES McLEMORE & MALLUN BREEDLOVE- [738 Capitol Avenue. 

McLEMORE, Appellants [Protesting issuance on March 13, 2000, 

vs. [to Jose Murillo, permit to Erect a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (three-story single-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9802877. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(11B) APPEAL NO. 00-043 

TAKEMI TOTES, Appellant [738 Capitol Avenue. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on March 13, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Jose Murillo, permit to Erect a 

[Building (three-story single-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9802877. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnerney was absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that all property line windows be above 
the peak of the roof on the McLemore's home, on CONDITION that the said property line windows 
consist of glass block or be opaque, on CONDITION that the permit holder rebuild the fence on the south 
side of the subject property, on CONDITION that the permit holder re-submit plans to show the adjoining 
properties more accurately, and on further CONDITION that the permit holder pay 2/3 or $2500, which 
ever is greater, of the cost of enclosing the crawl space and relocating the utility meters on Ms. Totes' 
property which is to be completed prior to the commencement of any construction, with FINDINGS. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jose Murillo, permit holder, said he intended to build the fence required by the Planning 
Commission as well as pay for the moving of the crawl space opening, the electric service box and the 
electric meter, but he wanted to keep the windows with glass blocks or other opaqueness to safeguard 
neighbor's privacy. 2. Mallun Breedlove-McLemore, co-appellant, said there are four issues: 
neighborhood character, character of Mr. Murillo, the windows along her property line, and the fence he 
said he would build. She said that he agreed to delete the windows in exchange for her not filing an 
appeal, but he had not deleted them. She feels the top floor should be deleted from the plans as it is out 
of character with the area. She said the drainage will be a problem, too. 3. Takemi Totes, appellant, said 
she appealed because of the fence issue. She is concerned that her crawl space entry, electric box and 
electric meter will be blocked by the proposed project. She said the cost of moving these items was 
constantly rising and the $1500 awarded her by the Planning Commission was not sufficient anymore. 
4. Joseph Totes, son of the appellant, said there was no mention on the plans of a retaining wall to 
support his family's house since Mr. Murillo is excavating below the Totes' structure which will sink if it is 
not reinforced. 5. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported on two issues: the windows 
along the lot line which are permitted under the 1995 Building Code if certain conditions are met. He said 
the plans did not show the abutting buildings and that windows were not required by the Code. He felt 
there was nothing special here as far as underpinning and shoring. New construction must protect and 
preserve abutting properties. 6. Lewis Robles, agent for the permit holder, described the level of 
excavation needed. The garage would be five feet off the line to protect neighbors. The windows would 
be of glass block and opaque and would not invade privacy. Mr. Murillo to pay 50/50 for moving Ms. 
Totes' meters. 7. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, said that the Planning Commission had proposed 
$300 to move the crawl space opening. He said the light well was not addressed by the Commission but 
was a staff recommendation. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 3, 2000 

(12) APPEAL NO. V00-041 

ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants [2090 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 
[garage and one-story building addition 
[in the required yard of a single family 
[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to May 24, 2000 prior to the meeting. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m 




mold Y.K. Chin, President 




Robert H. Feldmajv&^ecutive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 



\4 






Government Information Center 
q F Public Library 
Main Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

~ ~ ~ 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect to 
agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

MAV I ? 2000 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 
SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

(3) REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : 317 Rutledge Street. Letter from Ellen Engman, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over 
Variance Case No. 99.623V granting a rear yard variance to Peter Strauss for construction of a two-story 
rear addition that encroaches approximately 4'4" into the required rear yard. 

Date granted January 20, 2000 

Last day to appeal January 31 , 2000 

Request for jurisdiction April 24, 2000 

ITEM B : 2370 Francisco Street. Letter from Patrick Maher, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction 
over Building Permit Application No. 9916867S issued to Dominique Fracchia for a partial third floor 
addition consisting of master bedroom, master bath, dressing room and roof deck. 

Date issued April 14, 2000 

Last day to appeal May 1 , 2000 

Request for jurisdiction May 3, 2000 

(4) APPEAL NO. 99-200 

RALPH MAHER, Appellant [Revocation by the Taxicab Commission 

vs. [on December 9, 1999, of Taxicab 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [Medallion No. 734. 

[RESOLUTION NO. 71-99. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-036 

MATTHEW WONG, Appellant [Revocation on March 2, 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion No. 942. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 200-17. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-029 

ELIZABETH COLLET, Appellant [301 5 Washington Street. 

vs. [Denial on February 1 1 , 2000, of permit 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (construct new wood 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [frame deck at rear yard approx. 8'-6" 

[above grade; add new French doors to 

[deck from house; deck lighting and 

[fountain). 

[APPLICATION NO. 991 271 9S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 17, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(7) APPEAL NO. 00-031 

OUTDOOR SYSTEMS ADVERTISING, Appellant [1 900 Van Ness Avenue. 

vs. [Suspension on March 2, 2000, of permit 

DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (abate Notice of 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Violation; reduce and reinstall billboard 

[sign to original size of 12'-3" x 24'-6"). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/02/806. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8) APPEAL NO. 00-045 

JEFFREY LEIBOVITZ, LOUISE BIRD, TOBY LEVY, [599 Third Street. 

DEBRA DOLCH & JIM ROUIAN, Appellants [Protesting issuance on March 17, 2000, 

vs. [to V. Honig, permit to Alter a Building 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [(alteration to interior layout; kitchen 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [layout; bathroom, stairs, partition, 

[penthouse-mechanical). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/17/4732. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9) APPEAL NO. 99-112 

WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants [3647-49 - 23rd Street. 

vs. [Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 

[that the laundromat business is limited 
[by Planning Code Sections 182, 710.40 
[and 790.102(e) to serve only the 
[immediate neighborhood with all 
[washing and cleaning done on-site and 
[with all windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(10) CLOSED SESSION : ANNUAL EVALUATION OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. 

ITEM A : Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session. 



ITEM B : Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and San Francisco 
Administrative Code Section 67.10(b). 

Annual evaluation of goals/objectives for Executive Secretary for Performance Management Program for 
FY 1999-2000 and setting goals for FY 2000-2001. 

ITEM C : Board will reconvene in open session and vote whether or not to disclose any or all discussions 
held in closed session (S.F. Admin. Code Section 67.10(b)). 






ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 






MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader durinc 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relatec 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In orde 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remindec 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City tc 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUN 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Marke 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible^; 
services call 923-6142. 

I 



7 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polh 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people anc 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Franciscc 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mai 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S F. Public Library 
Government Infor. Center 
Larkin/Grove Sts. 
Dept. 41 



MINUTES OF THE 
REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam El Qadah and 
Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; 
Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, 
Executive Secretary for the Board. 

ABSENT : Vice-President Sabrina Saunders. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLiC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect to 
agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Ron Wolter, United Taxicab Workers, spoke in opposition to the continuances granted for 
revocation of medallion appeals because there is such a long list of drivers waiting for medallions to be 
reissued. 2. President Chin explained the Board's policy of granting continuances when a Commissioner 
is absent as this night, so as to reduce the need for rehearing appeals by a full five member Board. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS : 1. The Executive Secretary reported on the legislation introduced at the Board of 
Supervisors that would grant the status of "principals" to adjacent neighbors who have been Discretionary 
Review requestors at the Planning Commission when denied applicants appeal to the Board of Appeals. 
2. Commissioner Cullum explained that the version she was distributing was the latest version of the 
proposal by Supervisor Barbara Kaufman and that no amendment to the Board's rules would be 
necessary if the proposal is enacted. DOPI iMFMTQ HPPT 

MAY 3 2CG9 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



MINUTES OF REGULAR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MAY 17. 2000 



(3) REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE 10-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : 317 Rutledge Street. Letter from Ellen Engman, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over 
Variance Case No. 99.623V granting a rear yard variance to Peter Strauss for construction of a two-story 
rear addition that encroaches approximately 4'4" into the required rear yard. 

Date granted January 20, 2000 

Last day to appeal January 31 , 2000 

Request for jurisdiction April 24, 2000 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-Presider 
Saunders was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Neil Gibbs, agent for requestor Ellen Engman, asked the Board to allow them to file a late 
appeal because proper notice was not given to neighbors of the project and the posting was done in an 
alley and not on a street. 2. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained how the Planning staff uses a 
professional list service for mailing notices of projects and that as far as he knew the proper notices were 
given for this case. He said that the poster in the alley was not within the letter of the requirements. No 
notice envelopes from the mailing have been returned by the Post Office. 3. Peter Strauss, variance 
holder, said he felt the request is an attempt to block his modest development and that they had an 
opportunity to speak on the project at his variance appeal in March. He said they could see the posted 
notice and they were notified when his variance was granted, but they did not act until April 24 th . 



REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE 15-DAY APPEAL PERIOD: 






ITEM B : 2370 Francisco Street. Letter from Patrick Maher, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction 
over Building Permit Application No. 9916867S issued to Dominique Fracchia for a partial third floor 
addition consisting of master bedroom, master bath, dressing room and roof deck. 

Date issued April 14, 2000 

Last day to appeal May 1 , 2000 

Request for jurisdiction May 3, 2000 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0 (Vic 
President Saunders was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction. 



SPEAKERS : 1. Patrick Maher, requestor, explained that he wanted to file a late appeal because t 
height of the project would have a negative impact on him. 2. Dominique Fracchia, permit holder, said 
that Mr. Maher was a contractor and had understood the plans but had not appealed and that now he was 
well under way and it was too late. He said that the addition would only be 12 feet higher and not 15 as 
originally planned, so there was no need for the appeal anyway. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 99-200 

RALPH MAHER, Appellant [Revocation by the Taxicab Commission 

vs. [on December 9, 1999, of Taxicab 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [Medallion No. 734. 

[RESOLUTION NO. 71-99. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



aid 
as 



MINUTES OF REGULAR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 17. 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to 
RESCHEDULE the matter to July 12, 2000 as requested by the appellant and agreed to by the 
respondent prior to the meeting. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-036 

MATTHEW WONG, Appellant [Revocation on March 2, 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion No. 942. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 200-17. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to 
RESCHEDULE the matter to July 12, 2000 as requested by the appellant and agreed to by the 
respondent prior to the meeting 



(6) APPEAL NO. 00-029 

ELIZABETH COLLET, Appellant [301 5 Washington Street. 

vs. [Denial on February 1 1 , 2000, of permit 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (construct new wood 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [frame deck at rear yard approx. 8'-6" 

[above grade; add new French doors to 

[deck from house; deck lighting and 

[fountain). 

[APPLICATION NO. 991 271 9S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice- 
President Saunders was absent) to OVERRULE the Planning Department and GRANT the permit on 
CONDITION that the deck be pulled back by six inches, with Section 31 1 and Prop M FINDINGS from the 
Planning staff report which were incorporated by reference. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained how the Planning Commission on 
December 9 th had come to disapprove the project because it believed an agreement had been made 
between the former owners and the neighbors several years ago, that no deck would ever be approved 
for this house, but that there was no writing or Notice of Special Restrictions in the file to memorialize 
such an agreement. He said the staff report and recommendation had been to approve the deck if 
shortened 6 inches so that it did not encroach into the required rear yard, and so that it meet the 
Residential Design Guidelines and Prop M and the Code, and so that it does not impede light and air and 
view or encroach into open space. 2. David Cincotta, attorney for appellant, said he had not been a party 
to any agreement nor had the appellant been represented by counsel at the Planning Commission. He 
said that the Commission transcript he had submitted showed the only issue had been the alleged 
agreement of 1997 between the parties then, but that no written agreement had been presented. He felt 
the Code was being misinterpreted and that the appellant would lop off 6 inches so the deck would be 
Code compliant. 3. Elizabeth Collet, appellant, said she was not trying to be difficult, but that she needed 
access to her yard which her project will provide, just as the other houses on the block have. Public 
Comment in Support of the Project: 4. Julie Cook said she was not opposed to the plans and that there 
was no opposition to the appellant on the street. She too had gone through the permit process for a rear 
deck and she uses her yard now every day. 5. Mark Dawson said he supports the project, and that he 
had been the real estate agent who represented the former owners who purchased and later sold the 
property and that he had been at the 1997 Commission meeting when the parties had spoken in the 

3 



MINUTES OF REGULAR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 17. 2000 



(7) 



(8) 



hallway and then had dropped the Discretionary Review request after passing a note to Mr. Passmore that 
DR was not necessary with the revised plans. He said there had been no agreement implied or written 
that one would ever again seek to build a deck, and that the proposed deck was a good addition to the 
building. Public Comment Against the Project: 6. Richard Marshall said he had durable power of 
attorney for Wendy Volken, the neighbor who opposes the project, and that she still opposed it, but was ill 
and could not attend. She wants the Commission denial upheld along with 19 other neighbors and Don 
Cruet, a former owner, and Greg Scott, president of the Pacific Heights Neighborhood Association. 7. 
Charles Molle said he lives at 113 Broderick and is 85 years old and supports the Commission denial of 
the permit. 8. Commissioner Cullum said she had once done some legal work for Mr. Molle but she felt 
there was no conflict of interest for her here and that she could be fair and unbiased in this case. 9. 
Stephen Williams, attorney for Ms. Volken, said that even if this hearing is de novo, that if there is any 
reason to uphold the Commission's denial it should be upheld. He reminded the Board that this key lot 
and the project impacts all the lots that abut it. He analyzed the project in terms of the Residential Design 
Guidelines and said the project would have a tremendous impact on the neighbors and that there is only 
one other elevated deck on the block. 10. Eleanor Dickinson of 2125 Broderick Street said the proposed 
"so-called deck" of the 1996-1997 plan had been enclosed and that the City did not check on it or know 
about it. She asked why this deck kept coming up when the Commission and Mr. Passmore unanimously 
disapproved it. 11. Andrew Green, Senior Building Inspector, DBI, explained the six inch tolerance 
allowed by the Building Code in answer to Commissioner Mclnerney's question. 



APPEAL NO. 00-031 



OUTDOOR SYSTEMS ADVERTISING, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1900 Van Ness Avenue. 
[Suspension on March 2, 2000, of permit 
[to Alter a Buiiding (abate Notice of 
[Violation; reduce and reinstall billboard 
[sign to original size of 12'-3" x 24'-6"). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/02/806. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders wj 
absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to May 31, 2000 at the request of the appellant. 

SPEAKER : George Speir, attorney for Outdoor Systems, appellant. 



APPEAL NO. 00-045 



JEFFREY LEIBOVITZ, LOUISE BIRD, TOBY LEVY, 
DEBRA DOLCH & JIM ROUIAN, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[599 Third Street. 

[Protesting issuance on March 17, 2000, 
[to V. Honig, permit to Alter a Building 
[(alteration to interior layout; kitchen 
[layout; bathroom, stairs, partition, 
[penthouse-mechanical). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/17/4732. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : WITHDRAWN by the appellants prior to hearing. 



MINUTES OF REGULAR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 17, 2000 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 99-112 



WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[3647-49 - 23rd Street. 
[Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 
[that the laundromat business is limited 
[by Planning Code Sections 182, 710.40 
[and 790.102(e) to serve only the 
[immediate neighborhood with all 
[washing and cleaning done on-site and 
[with all windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to 
RESCHEDULE the matter to May 31 , 2000 at the request of Alex Weyand, attorney for appellants. 



(10) CLOSED SESSION : ANNUAL EVALUATION OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. 

ITEM A : Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session. 

SPEAKERS : None 

ITEM B : Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and San Francisco 
Administrative Code Section 67.10(b). 

Annual evaluation of goals/objectives for Executive Secretary for Performance Management Program for 
FY 1999-2000 and setting goals for FY 2000-2001. 

ACTION : Evaluation of the Executive Secretary performed by members of the Board. 

ITEM C : Board reconvened in open session and voted whether or not to disclose any or all discussions 
held in closed session (S.F. Admin. Code Section 67.10(b). 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to 
have NO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE of the matters discussed during the closed session. 

There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. 




Arnold Chin, President 




Robe 

Executive Secretary 

Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991 . 



P 



f/ 



Aueaqn ouqnd *J'S 
ja^uao uoL^euuoj.ui luauituaAog 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD 



'4 



— 



LWCUMbNIS DEPT. 



WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 



SAN FRANC{sco 

p U8LiC LIBRARY 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect to 
agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 



(3) REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 407 Connecticut Street. Letter from Andrew M. Zacks, attorney for 
appellants Allan and Lorraine Thompson, requesting rehearing of Appeals 98-136 and 98-137 heard on 
April 12, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and 
Commissioner Mclnerney dissented) to UPHOLD the department and DENY the demolition and building 
permits. 



(4) 



APPEAL NO. 99-035 



LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2234-2236 Francisco Street. 
[Protesting issuance on November 12, 
[1998, to John and Evelyn Schiappaca- 
[sse, permit to Alter a Building (remove 
[walls to provide parking spaces and 
[remove daycare facility). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9823286. 
[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARCH 18, 
[1999. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 99-073 



FRANK DAIJO, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



[470 - 25 th Avenue. 

[Protesting issuance on April 22, 1999, to 
[Hugh Villavicencio, permit to Alter a 
[Building (replace kitchen cabinets, sink, 
[countertops, linoleum floor, window; 
[replace bathroom tub, sink, cabinets, 
[tile floor, repaint and repair floors). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9907772. 
[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-054 



ELIZABETH ANNE DOHRMAN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[21 Presidio Avenue. 

[Protesting issuance on July 29, 1999, to 

[Joseph and Laura Sweeney, permit to 

[Alter a Building (remodel area adjacent 

[to garage on ground floor; remodel 

[existing full bath, laundry, game room, 

[bar; lateral force upgrade of lowest 

[story). 

[PERMIT SUSPENDED TO ALLOW 15- 

[DAY APPEAL PERIOD. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9904079. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 24, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-056 



PACIFIC HEIGHTS CONCERNED NEIGHBORS, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2910 Pacific Avenue. 
[Protesting issuance on March 31, 2000, 
[to Dan and Jaclyn Safier, permit to Erect 
[a Building (three-story single family 
[dwelling) at 2910 Pacific Avenue. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9910723S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. V00-041 



ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2090 Jackson Street. 

[Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

[to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 

[garage and one-story building addition 

[in the required yard of a single family 

[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-069 



TWIN PEAKS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Sutro Tower. 

[Zoning Administrator's determination 
[dated April 14, 2000 that the work 
[covered by Building Permit Application 
[No. 9916932 requires no new or 
[modified conditional use authorization 
[by the Planning Commission and is 
[covered by Planning Commission 
[Resolution No. 5967. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible ^ 
services call 923-6142. ? 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. 



* 



LOBBYING ACTIVITY 






The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



, rnM ^ 






MINUTES OF THE 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

DOCUMENTS DEPT 
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2000 

^ JUN - 9 2000 

5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL. ROOM 416 SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John Mclnemey who arrived late at 6:54 p.m. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; 
Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, 
Executive Secretary for the Board. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect to 
agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKER : President Chin asked the audience for a show of hands of those who intended to speak on 
Item 9 and announced it wouldn't be considered until at least seven in order to allow Commissioner 
Mclnerney to arrive. 

(3) REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 407 Connecticut Street. Letter from Andrew M. Zacks, attorney for 
appellants Allan and Lorraine Thompson, requesting rehearing of Appeals 98-136 and 98-137 heard on 
April 12, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and 
Commissioner Mclnerney dissented) to UPHOLD the department and DENY the demolition and building 
permits. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Mclnerney was 
absent) to CONTINUE the matter to May 31, 2000. 

SPEAKER : Andrew Zacks, attorney for appellants, asked for a continuance to the next meeting with five 
members present. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MAY 24, 2000 



(4) 



APPEAL NO. 99-035 



(5) 



LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2234-2236 Francisco Street. 
[Protesting issuance on November 12, 
[1998, to John and Evelyn Schiappaca- 
[sse, permit to Alter a Building (remove 
[walls to provide parking spaces and 
[remove daycare facility). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9823286. 
[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARCH 18, 
[1999. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (President Chin 
dissented, Commissioner Mclnerney was absent) to CONTINUE the matter to October 4, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Alioto, attorney for appellant, reported that he has appealled the Superior 
Court judgement against his client and expects to win on appeal. He said the case presents novel issues 
of law of child care and provisions of the Health and Safety Code, and a stay on the eviction action 
remains in place, so he requested a continuance for six months.. 2. Andrew Zacks, attorney for permit 
holders, said he felt this request was just delaying the inevitable. His clients have been trying to get the 
permit for 18 months. The court upheld his detainer action and he felt the Board should decide this 
appeal now and uphold the permit. 



APPEAL NO. 99-073 



FRANK DAIJO, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



[470 - 25 th Avenue. 

[Protesting issuance on April 22, 1999, to 
[Hugh Villavicencio, permit to Alter a 
[Building (replace kitchen cabinets, sink, 
[countertops, linoleum floor, window; 
[replace bathroom tub, sink, cabinets, 
[tile floor, repaint and repair floors). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9907772. 
[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner Mclnerney was 
absent) to CONTINUE this matter to August 30, 2000. 

SPEAKER : The Executive Secretary asked the Board to continue the matter to August 30, 2000 as 
requested by the parties who have begun settlement negotiations which may mean no hearing will be 
necessary. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MAY 24. 2000 



(6) APPEAL NO. 00-054 

ELIZABETH ANNE DOHRMAN, Appellant [21 Presidio Avenue. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 29, 1999, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Joseph and Laura Sweeney, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Alter a Building (remodel area adjacent 

[to garage on ground floor; remodel 
[existing full bath, laundry, game room, 
[bar; lateral force upgrade of lowest 
[story). 

[PERMIT SUSPENDED TO ALLOW 15- 
[DAY APPEAL PERIOD. 
[APPLICATION NO. 9904079. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner 
Mclnerney was absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that a trellis be placed on the subject 
property deck or shared property line, or upon other agreement of the parties. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Elizabeth Dohrman, appellant, explained that all she opposed was the lower deck which 
impinges on her privacy due to the different elevation she is on. She was out of the country when it was 
built and she had no notice from her neighbors of how large the deck is so she was allowed a new appeal 
period. She is devastated by the deck. 2. Joseph Sweeney, permit holder, explained the chronology of 
events regarding the project and said the deck is almost completed except for a railing. He explained 
what measures he had taken to mitigate the impact on the appellant. Photos show greenery between the 
houses in the yard. He described support from the neighbors on the west and the north. 3. Rafael Torres- 
Gil, Senior Building Inspector, DBI, reported on the notification made in the case. 4. Larry Badiner, Zoning 
Administrator, said that the project was too small to trigger Section 31 1 notification requirements under the 
Planning Code. 

Commissioner Mclnerney arrived at 6:54 p.m. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 00-056 

PACIFIC HEIGHTS CONCERNED NEIGHBORS, [291 Pacific Avenue. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on March 31, 2000, 

vs. [to Dan and Jaclyn Safier, permit to Erect 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (three-story single family 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [dwelling) at 2910 Pacific Avenue. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9910723S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the 
permit with the adoption of Section 31 1 and Prop M FINDINGS to be incorporated by reference from the 
Planning staff report. 

SPEAKERS : 1. James Johnson spoke for the appellant group and asked that the Board require 
modifications to the project to bring it into harmony with the other houses being built on the former Grant 
school site, of which this is the last lot to receive a permit. He said that unlike the others, the permit holder 
would make no concessions to his group, and that the house will look odd in context although it may be a 
good design if standing alone. 2. Gail Schecter, agent for appellant group, described the serial petition 



WW WWW I W I 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MAY 24. 2000 



with 50 names she submitted in support of the appeal. She said the design is unfair to the neighbors 
since it takes advantage of an unnatural elevation from the old playing field which should be lowered. 3 
Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holders, submitted a letter from the Pacific Heights organization in 
support of the project. She explained how the proposed house will fit in with the other new houses which 
are all unlike one another. 4. Ed McEachron, architect for the permit holder, explained how the drainage 
problem of the site was being addressed. 5. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, reported that th 
Planning Commission had voted not to take the project under Discretionary Review and had approved the 
plans with no changes. He said the Planning staff had recommended approval. Public Comment for 
Appellants: 6. Dorothy Kitt of 2801 Broadway, to the north and below the site, described her concerns 
about the drainage problems generated by the removal of the asphalt from the site. She asked the Board 
to impose conditions that will prevent drainage problems. 7. Judith Wilson said she was one of the six 
tenants who are affected by the project and were not present when the plans were shown at the 
association meeting She said that their group had negotiated with the other owners and wanted to do the 
same with the permit holders. The project will block her light and air, so she requested more setback. 
8. Linda Romany of 2919 Pacific, #10, on the third floor, said her view will be gone and the permit holders 
lack consideration for the neighborhood in not respecting the 35-foot height limit and a 25-foot setback. 
Public Comment for the Project: 9. Susan Lowenberg said that she could not be happier with the 
design for the house and that she could not even remember from her years on the Planning Commission 
that the Pacific Heights Association ever supported a project as in the case here. 

(8) APPEAL NO. V00-041 

ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants [2090 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 
[garage and one-story building addition 
[in the required yard of a single family 
[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to July 12, 2000 prior to hearing. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(9) APPEAL NO. 00-069 

TWIN PEAKS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, [Sutro Tower. 

Appellant [Zoning Administrator's determination 

vs. [dated April 14, 2000 that the work 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [covered by Building Permit Application 

[No. 9916932 requires no new or 
[modified conditional use authorization 
[by the Planning Commission and is 
[covered by Planning Commission 
[Resolution No. 5967. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning 
Administrator's determination with FINDINGS submitted by the attorney for the determination holder. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 24. 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. President Chin addressed several questions to Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, 
concerning the issues raised in this appeal. 2. Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, said that the 
Planning Director had the legal authority to assume the function of Zoning Administrator, that he had the 
authority to rescind the determination of Mary Gallagher in December 1999 before the determination 
became final at the end of the 15-day appeal period, although once a determination is appealed to the 
Board of Appeals it can no longer be modified or rescinded, and that the Superior Court had upheld the 
Board's 1998 decision on a previous similar determination. 3. Gerald Green, Director of Planning and the 
Acting Zoning Administrator who wrote the subject determination, said that he had rescinded the earlier 
determination because, after analysis of the history of this matter and review of the judicial decision of the 
last determination appealed to the Board, he found it to be contradictory to the 12 years of City policy and 
precedents by Robert Passmore. He explained how the tower is necessary for emergency 
communications of SFPD and the SFFD for protection of the western portion of the City. He said the 
findings of the 1966 Conditional Use resolution covered the changes in use of the tower over the years, 
and that the present Discretionary Review policy will allow the public to comment on all aspects of the 
permit presently under review by the Planning Department. 4. Christine Linnenbach, attorney for the 
appellant group, using the overhead projector, explained how the original 1966 Conditional Use resolution 
of the Planning Commission only covered the ten TV and four radio stations and that the many score 
antennas and two underground fuel tanks added since without proper permits were not covered and a 
new Conditional Use authorization was required by the Planning Code. She described the history of the 
tower and its permits and alleged that the tower now posed a health and safety hazard to its immediate 
neighbors and the City for which those concerned needed a Conditional Use forum to find relief from the 
City. Public Comment for the Acting Zoning Administrator: 5. Debra Stein, attorney for the 
determination holder, Sutro Tower, Inc., explained how the original Conditional Use resolution allowed the 
many technical and broadcasting upgrades over the years and advised the Board that all forums had 
rejected the appellant's arguments, including the Superior Court in December 1999. She asked the 
Board to uphold the subject determination. 6. Ronald Van Buskirk, attorney for the determination holder, 
said that the Superior Court had upheld the Zoning Administrator's former determination by Robert 
Passmore and that all the earlier determinations had been upheld. Adding digital TV equipment was not a 
significant change in use justifying a new Conditional Use authorization. He is confident that the recent 
court decision will be upheld on appeal. 6. Eugene Zastrow, general manager of Sutro Tower, Inc., 
described the health and safety measures voluntarily undertaken to insure safety to the neighbors, 
including review by an expert structural advisory committee, and measurement of radiation within 1000 
feet with the Health Department which allowed- less than 15% of that allowed under federal standards, with 
more structural upgrades being planned and a physical test to be done. 7. Robert McCarthy, attorney for 
determination holder, explained the 1966 resolution language and how it covers the additions made over 
the years to the tower, including the new means of communication. He said the Planning Commission in 
1966 had been prescient in its language. He showed large photos of the tower in 1974, 1986, and 2000 
to show how it has not changed in appearance from a distance. Public Comment for the Appellant: 8. 
Aaron Peskin, President of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, read a declaration by Mary Gallagher, the former 
Zoning Administrator whose determination in December had been rescinded by Gerald Green, the 
Director of Planning, which gave a narrative of events concerning her determination and resignation. She 
wrote that she had followed all instructions of the Planning Director in reaching her determination. 9. Jon 
Ridenour said that no one had mentioned the diesel fuel in underground tanks and their proximity to 
reservoirs and that the state and federal officials had no knowledge of these tanks since there had been 
no building permits filed for them until he had informed the engineer working on a reservoir retrofit 
program. The tower owners had evaded the permit process when installing the tanks. 10. Christopher 
Beaver of Friends of Noe Valley quoted Supervisor Leland Yee's question to Gerald Green at the recent 
meeting of the Public Utilities and De-Regulation Committee on this very subject as well as Deborah 
Kearny's remarks about Look Out Mountain antennas in Colorado and the high incidence of brain cancer 
there. Supervisor Yee had asked if 10,000 antennas had been added to the tower would that trigger a 
new Conditional Use process and that Gerald Green had answered "no." 11. Elizabeth Mettling said that 
the bureaucracy is to serve the public and that when a public official is fired as in the case of Mary 
Gallagher, something is terribly wrong. 12. Doug Comstock, President of the Coalition of San Francisco 



IV^ l~AsJ%Jl\J\. UIO Vllf W Wl 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MAY 24. 2000 



Neighborhoods, asked people in the audience to hold up their signs showing their neighborhood 
association names, all of whom support the appellant. He said the tower had been out of control from its 
beginning and should be expected to follow the law. He said it is built on what was supposed to be a 
green belt. 13. Liddy Kelley said that the people should be represented in determining appropriate land 
use, so that families can be raised without threats to safety. The issue is love of humanity and it will not 
die soon. She recommended a scientific panel as in England to advise of the siting of antennas away 
from schools, and that this was a case of radiation without representation. 14. Daniela Kirshenbaum of 
the Pacific Heights Association asked who will say the Board did the right thing in the event the tower falls. 
15. Mary Helen Briscoe from the Haight-Ashbury and Stanyan-Fulton area said she is concerned that the 
tower is not following the Codes. She said the Conditional Use process is costly but that citizens needed 
to know about the tower and its affects on them. 16. Marc Solomon showed a communicators device and 
said that democracy and the planning process in the City is broken. He said there are special rules for 
people who can afford lawyers and lobbyists and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is following the 
problem and hoped the Board was also. 17. Rae Doyle of the Greater West Portal Neighborhood 
Association said he and his group were in support of the appellant. 18. Siu Ling Chen, formerly of the City 
Attorney's Office, said that the only issue is whether the new building permits required a new Conditional 
Use authorization. She said that in 1988 a new Conditional Use was required and the application was 
disapproved for new antennas. She said that there is a visual impact from antennas and equipment 
added to the tower that can be seen by the people living under the tower. She said the current clutter of 
antennas and equipment on the tower was not authorized in 1966. She asked the Board to apply the 
Planning Code which requires Conditional Use for utilities in residential neighborhoods. 19. Claire 
McGhee said she supports the appellant and that replacement of the old tower needs a Conditional Use 
process now. She said that six booms on the tower were installed without permits and these are not just 
flags but are heavy. 20. Hiroshi Fukuda of the Richmond District listed recent disasters and said we could 
have one here, since the tower is quite old and needs more care. The old should slow down but this old 
tower is taking on more work. He said he felt we should be prudent and help the tower and that safety of 
the tower is for the people and the old tower needs to be studied. 21. Mary Russo McAfee reminded the 
Board of the 1995 sewer collapse, a disaster, though no one died. All of the houses on 24 th Avenue could 
have been lost. Here the Board has the power to take precautions concerning another utility and to avoid 
another disaster. 

22. John Barbey of the Western Addition group. said the issue is the safety of the structure with 200 
antennas added to it weighing tons. He said not requiring a Conditional Use process defies simple logic 
since the tower was built with pre-1966 technology and there is at least a 5% chance of an earthquake 
greater than the one in 1906. A third-party evaluation is needed to study the effect of the additional 
antennas and the fuel tanks. He implored the Board to give the public a Conditional Use forum. 23. Joan 
Girardot, President of the Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods, made up of 38 associations 
including the appellant, said she felt Mary Gallagher's determination was well thought out and should be 
reinstated and she asked by what authority did Gerald Green appoint himself Acting Zoning Administrator, 
and if his conclusion is correct, what limit is there to the number of antennas that can be added to the 
tower without a new Conditional Use authorization. 24. Bud Wilson, former President of the Greater West 
Portal Neighborhood Association, currently Vice-President of the Twin Peaks Council, supports the 
appellant and said the Planning Code provides safety to the average citizen, and the determination gives 
the public no opportunity to address the Commission on this health and safety issue. He hopes that public 
space can be restored in the process. 25. John Bardis of the Inner Sunset Action Committee described a 
meeting 30 years ago of SPEAK that was about the Conditional Use for the tower. Now the problem is 
that the Conditional Use process is not being followed for an industrial-scale facility in a residential area 
with underground fuel tanks. This is a graphic case of failure to follow the law. 26. Walter Caplan of 
Forest Knolls said the case depends on the meaning of the facts and law and he cited a 1985 California 
Supreme Court case about a Sports Arena and Conditional Use which required the Conditional Use 
process. It led to Robert Passmore requiring a Conditional Use in 1988 for new antennas. There are 
limits to what can be added to the tower and they have gone way beyond the limits. We need notice and 
hearings before we decide things. 27. John Backus of the appellant group said this case of the fox 
looking after the chickens and he is disgusted by the back room dealing. Public Comment in General: 

6 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MAY 24. 2000 



28. Alice Barkley said she was not for the appeal but she wanted to remind the Board that the 1996 
Charter changed the powers of the Zoning Administrator. The role had been independent, but it was 
decided to be put under the Director of Planning. She voted against it, but it was adopted by the voters. 

29. Jules Hummus of the appellant group in answer to a question from Commissioner El Qadah, said that 
he had a photo of his house showing a piece of metal that fell from the tower, and that one day while 
walking his dog he saw workmen paving concrete and he was told by them that something fell from the 
tower and they had been told to pick it up right away. 

There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. 



c^- 




ArnolehY.K. Chin, President 



'>RoDert H. Feldman, Executive Se< 



Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 



aoou i^g 'ipue-ig mew 
£ieaqn ^HLqnd 'J*S 

J31U33 UO.i4eilLIOJ.IJ I ^U3UUJ9A09 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7. r* r> 



V 



31 /go 



WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect to 
agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Pi&lisXpmment to another 
time during the meeting. ^GUMENTS DEPT. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . MAY 3 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : 105 Molimo Drive. Letter from Dawn L. Hassell, attorney for Marian Mozian, requesting that the 
Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9905531 issued to Milt Simpson for 
replacement of existing deck with three stories of decks with a stair; remodel interior stairs; replace 
existing masonry fireplace with metal fireplace and flue; replace two bathrooms and kitchen; enlarge rear 
of house 4 feet at living/dining room and 6-1/2 feet at master bedroom/bath below finished existing 
basement; replace furnace, windows and doors. 

Date issued February 14, 2000 

Last day to appeal February 29, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction May 9, 2000 

ITEM B : 561 Birch Street. Letter from Michael Raifsnider requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over 
Building Permit Application No. 9923752 issued to Kevin Rambke to remove an illegal fifth unit and return 
the building to its legal use (four units). 

Date issued March 21 , 2000 

Last day to appeal April 5, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction May 12, 2000 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM C : 407 Connecticut Street. Letter from Andrew M. Zacks, attorney for appellants Allan and Lorraine 
Thompson, requesting rehearing of Appeals 98-136 and 98-137 heard on April 12, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner Mclnerney dissented) to 
UPHOLD the department and DENY the demolition and building permits. 

ITEM D : 738 Capitol Avenue. Letter from Takemi Totes, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 
00-043. Hearing May 3, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 
(Commissioner Mclnerney absent) to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with FINDINGS 
with the following CONDITIONS: (1) All property line windows be above the peak of the roof on the 
McLemore's home; (2) Said property line windows consist of glass block or be opaque; (3) The permit 
holder rebuilds the fence on the south side of the subject property; (4) The permit holder resubmits plans 
to show the adjoining properties more accurately; (5) The permit holder pays 2/3 or $2,500, whichever is 
greater, of the cost of enclosing the crawl space and relocating the utility meters on Ms. Totes' property 
which is to be completed prior to the commencement of any construction. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 31. 2000 - PAGE 2 



(4) 



APPEAL NO. 00-008 



JUDY L. WEST, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[321 Potrero Avenue. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated January 5, 2000 that 
[expansion of the non-complying rear 
[structure cannot be approved until a 
[variance from the rear yard standards 
[for residential blocks of buildings in M-1 
[(Light Industrial) districts has been 
[granted, and the fact that serious 
[strengthening and disabled access is 
[being provided as part of the proposed 
[expansion has no bearing on this 
[determination. 
[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 00-003 



RANDY GEORGE, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[361 Lombard Street. 

[Denial on December 23, 1999, of permit 

[to Alter a Building (legalization of hot 

[tub). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9903366. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-031 



OUTDOOR SYSTEMS ADVERTISING, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1900 Van Ness Avenue. 
[Suspension on March 2, 2000, of permit 
[to Alter a Building (abate Notice of 
[Violation; reduce and reinstall billboard 
[sign to original size of 12'-3" x 24'-6"). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/02/806. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. V00-037 



WADE VAN VALIN, PAUL & KELLY GVILDYS, 

Appellants 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[639 Shotwell Street. 

[Denial on March 6, 2000, of Rear Yard 

[Variance (legalize construction of a one- 

[story addition and allow the construction 

[of a rear stair that encroaches 

[approximately six feet in the required 

[rear yard). 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.805V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal bhef. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader duringi 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca. us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY-G0V.INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTER 
DEPARTMENT 41 



\0 



MINUTES OF THE 

v 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

■> 7, 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2000 

1 T 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah and Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; 
Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, 
Executive Secretary for the Board. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect to 
agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : None DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . jy^ « . 20Q0 

SPEAKERS: None. SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : 105 Molimo Drive. Letter from Dawn L. Hassell, attorney for Marian Mozian, requesting that the 
Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9905531 issued to Milt Simpson for 
replacement of existing deck with three stories of decks with a stair; remodel interior stairs; replace 
existing masonry fireplace with metal fireplace and flue; replace two bathrooms and kitchen; enlarge rear 
of house 4 feet at living/dining room and 6-1/2 feet at master bedroom/bath below finished existing 
basement; replace furnace, windows and doors. 

Date issued February 14, 2000 

Last day to appeal February 29, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction May 9, 2000 

ACTION : WITHDRAWN by Dawn L. Hasseil, attorney for requestor, prior to hearing. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MAY 31. 2000 



ITEM B : 561 Birch Street. Letter from Michael Raifsnider requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over 
Building Permit Application No. 9923752 issued to Kevin Rambke to remove an illegal fifth unit and return 
the building to its legal use (four units). 

Date issued March 21, 2000 

Last day to appeal April 5, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction May 12, 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the request for 
jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Michael Raifsnider, attorney for requestor, explained that he had come to the Board as 
soon as he could. He said that the Board should allow the late appeal because of the shortage of 
housing, it would be a benefit to San Francisco if the unit is legalized. His client has been served with a 
notice to quit and an unlawful detainer action has been filed. 2. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, said 
that the Planning Commission is in the process of clarifying its policy on illegal units and that permits to 
remove illegal units will require Section 31 1 notification as a matter of policy. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief 
Building Inspector, DBI, said that he had no information on this item and explained the Building Code 
notice requirements for substantial alterations and that there was not a definition of "substantial 
alterations" in the Building Code. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM C : 407 Connecticut Street. Letter from Andrew M. Zacks, attorney for appellants Allan and Lorraine 
Thompson, requesting rehearing of Appeals 98-136 and 98-137 heard on April 12, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner Mclnerney dissented) tc 
UPHOLD the department and DENY the demolition and building permits. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner 
Mclnerney dissented) to DENY the request for rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Andrew Zacks, attorney for appellants/requestors, requested a rehearing for the reason 
that the findings of the Planning Commission and of the Board were defective and did not support the 
decision of the Board since his clients' plans met all Code requirements and their disapproval was not 
justified. 2. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, asked the Board to not grant a rehearing and said that 
the Planning Commission had made findings that the proposed design failed to meet the Residential 
Design Guidelines and that the Commission had asked the appellants to modify their plans. He said that 
since no new evidence was being presented, that no rehearing should be granted. 

ITEM D : 738 Capitol Avenue. Letter from Takemi Totes, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No 
00-043. Hearing May 3, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 
4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney was absent) to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit witf! 
FINDINGS with the following CONDITIONS: (1) All property line windows be above the peak of the roo: 
on the McLemore's home; (2) Said property line windows consist of glass block or be opaque; (3) The 
permit holder rebuilds the fence on the south side of the subject property; (4) The permit holder resubmit? 
plans to show the adjoining properties more accurately; (5) The permit holder pays 2/3 or $2,500 
whichever is greater, of the cost of enclosing the crawl space and relocating the utility meters on Ms 
Totes' property which is to be completed prior to the commencement of any construction. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 31, 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. 
Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney was 
recused) to DENY the request for rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Takemi Totes, appellant/requestor, said she was asking for a rehearing not because she 
had a problem with the proposed building, but because she did not have the money to do the necessary 
repairs on her building and she wanted the Board to spare her the costs and have the seller pay. 2. Mark 
Murillo, son of the permit holder, urged the Board to deny the request for rehearing because the appellant 
will continue to file appeals to stall the project, and no new evidence was being offered. He said the fence 
will not be impacted by the construction. 3. Joseph Totes, son of the appellant, in answer to a question 
from Commissioner El Qadah, said that the current fence encroaches on their property and that a new 
fence was very necessary. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-008 

JUDY L. WEST, Appellant [321 Potrero Avenue. 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated January 5, 2000 that 

[expansion of the non-complying rear 
[structure cannot be approved until a 
[variance from the rear yard standards 
[for residential blocks of buildings in M-1 
[(Light Industrial) districts has been 
[granted, and the fact that serious 
[strengthening and disabled access is 
[being provided as part of the proposed 
[expansion has no bearing on this 
[determination. 
[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to 
July 19, 2000 

SPEAKERS : None. ( A variance decision is expected soon for the benefit of the appellant.) 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-003 

RANDY GEORGE, Appellant [361 Lombard Street. 

vs. [Denial on December 23, 1999, of permit 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (legalization of hot 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [tub). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9903366. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit on 
CONDITION that the metal pipes in the subject light well be painted light colors, and on CONDITION that 
a lattice fence no more than 6 feet in height be installed in the light well to cover up the metal pipes, with 
FINDINGS 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained the history of the permit and the Planning 
Commission's discretionary review hearing and its decision. Hot tubs are permitted as rooftop 
obstructions. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, explained that the building permit was 
filed as part of the abatement action and settlement and if the permit is issued the hot tub can stay. 

3 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. MAY 31. 2000 






3. Steve Atkinson, attorney for appellant, explained the history of the dispute between his client and Mr. 
Jans, the neighbor who complained of the noise from the hot tub equipment in the light well which was 
resolved in 1997. He said his client had offered to erect a lath lattice work to screen the equipment, but 
the neighbors had not accepted the offer. He asked the Board to overrule the Commission and grant the 
permit and he offered to accept a condition to screen the equipment from the neighbor's view. Public 
Comment in Support of the Commission's Denial: 4. Donald Jans, adjoining property owner, said the 
City was right in denying the permit. He only has a problem with the high pitched whine of the equipment 
which should not be allowed in the light well under several provisions of the Building Code which he cited. 
5. Daniel Conrad, attorney for Eric Johnson, a neighbor, asked the Board to uphold the Commission's 
denial because of the visual impact of the equipment and pipes in the light well. He said the appellant had 
earlier misrepresented a penthouse. 6. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that from 
the photos and plans the tub and the equipment met the Building Code and there were no problems with a 
lath wall to screen the equipment since fences do not have to be fire rated and are allowed up to six feet 
with no permit. 6. Randolph George, the appellant, in response to a question from Commissioner 
Mclnemey, said that he was willing to paint the pipes and vents in the light well and run them up the 
corners to minimize their unsightliness. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-031 

OUTDOOR SYSTEMS ADVERTISING, Appellant [1 900 Van Ness Avenue. 

vs. [Suspension on March 2, 2000, of permit 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (abate Notice of 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Violation; reduce and reinstall billboard 

[sign to original size of 12'-3" x 24'-6"). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/02/806. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President 
Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to UPHOLD the suspension of the permit. 4 votes being 
necessary to overturn any departmental action, the suspension of the permit by the Planning Department 
is UPHELD. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained that the sign on the site had been 
expanded without a permit and a Notice of Violation had been issued for this non-conforming sign which 
now must comply with the sign standards of the Planning Code and not exceed 300 square feet with a 
wall entirely behind it. Van Ness Avenue is not a freeway at this point and a 300sf wall sign is a permitted 
use. 2. George Speir, attorney for appellant, gave a history of this sign and described the litigation 
between the owner of the adjacent building and his client, as well as the evolution of the type of signs 
used over the years. He maintained that the sign was never completely removed from the wall, but only 
replaced in part and he thought it was ironic that the City seemed to object to a size reduction of the sign. 
Public Comment in Support of the City: 3. Robert Moore, attorney for Joseph Betz, the owner of the 
adjacent building occupied by House of the Prime Rib, describe how the present sign hangs over his 
client's property for which he has never been paid. The litigation is about this fact. 4. Laurence Kornfield, 
Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that under the Building Code the property owner over which a 
construction hangs needs a building permit for such construction over it and Betz needs such a permit if 
the sign is to continue to hang over his property. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, MAY 31, 2000 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. V00-037 



WADE VAN VALIN, 



PAUL & KELLY GVILDYS, 
Appellants 



vs. 



ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[639 Shotwell Street. 

[Denial on March 6, 2000, of Rear Yard 

[Variance (legalize construction of a one- 

[story addition and allow the construction 

[of a rear stair that encroaches 

[approximately six feet in the required 

[rear yard). 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.805V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to 
GRANT the variance with FINDINGS. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained that this variance application had been 
disapproved because there was not sufficient hardship to justify the proposed rear yard addition. 
2. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellants, using a Power Point presenter and photos, explained how little the 
proposed addition will impact neighbors, who support the project, how the addition and deck are 
necessary for open space, and how the appellants should be applauded for saving a dilapidated old 
Victorian and bringing it up to current standards instead of demolishing it and building a modern building 
out of character with the neighborhood. No Public Comment. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned tj^ meeting at 8:1 1 p.m. 




Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 




Robert H. Feii^man, .Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 



9 



: 



Government Information Center 
S.F. Public Library 
Main Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 









REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 



7 



'/< 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2000 
\ 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

JUN - 2 2000 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : SAN pRANCISCO 
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : PUBLIC LIBRARY 

ITEM A : 378 Cumberland Street. Letter from Fernando Evangelho, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9919077 issued to Richard Beard and Michael Booth for 
demolition of a single-family residence. 

Date issued April 26, 2000 

Last day to appeal May 1 1 , 2000 

Request for jurisdiction May 25, 2000 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-058 

JOHN D. HENSALA, Appellant [4339 California Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on April 4, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Will Ng, permit to Erect a Building (three 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [dwelling units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/21/10/1623S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5) CONSENT ITEM : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to a 
vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal. 

(A) APPEAL NO. 00-070 

KANS YEE, Appellant [689-691 - 1 6 th Avenue. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on May 4, 2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/28/5681 . 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(B) APPEAL NO. 00-072 

VICTORIA ESMAS, Appellant [1465 - 14 th Avenue. 

vs. [Imposition of Penalty on May 15, 2000. 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [APPLICATION NO. 9919282. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 7, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-057 



SAWYER & GINETTE TERRELL, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2037 Hyde Street. 

[Protesting issuance on April 7, 2000, to 

[Jacques Janot, permit to Alter a Building 

[(create three-foot high concrete deck in 

[rear yard). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/24/5368. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-059 



KATHRYN L. ANDERSON, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[347A Masonic Avenue. 
[Protesting issuance on April 4, 2000, to 
[John Mallory, permit to Alter a Building 
[(relocate wall between unit and garage; 
[level floor; change sink/wash basin 
[location; add electrical fixtures; remove 
[illegal unit and revert to original use). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/23/2634. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. V00-062 



JOSEPHINE FRENDO, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[201 Mansell Street. 

[Denial on April 14, 2000, of Minimum 
[Lot Area and Rear Yard Variances 
[(subdivide an existing 25 x 170-foot 
[deep lot into two lots, resulting in an 
[existing one-story over garage, single 
[family dwelling and creation of a vacant 
[and buildable lot with proposed 
[construction of a new two-story over 
[garage, two-bedroom, single-family 
[dwelling on separate lots. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.136V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For compiete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine; 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY-G0V.INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTER 
DEPARTMENT 41 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 

'., 

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Allam El Qadah and 
Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; 
Laurence Komfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, 
Executive Secretary for the Board. 

ABSENT : Commissioner Carole Cullum. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 



SPEAKERS: None 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS : None. OAfc 

SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : 378 Cumberland Street. Letter from Fernando Evangelho, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9919077 issued to Richard Beard and Michael Booth for 
demolition of a single-family residence. 

Date issued April 26, 2000 

Last day to appeal May 1 1 , 2000 

Request for jurisdiction May 25, 2000 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JUNE 7. 2000 



- 



ACTION : Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was 
absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, explained the notice requirements for 
the subject project and how a second appeal period was allowed. He said that no demolition had 
occurred yet. 2. Fernando Evangelho, requestor, urged the Board to allow him to file a late appeal 
because of his fear that the demolition would damage his property and he wanted a guarantee that it 
would not. He said he wants his property videotaped before the demolition. He said he was out of the 
country when the permit was issued. 3. Richard Beard, co-permit holder and project architect, said that 
the property was posted when the permit was issued on April 26, 2000 and showed a photo of the poster 
on the building. He urged the Board to not allow a late filing which he said would only be a stalling tactic. 
He assured the Board he would take all regular steps to not damage his neighbor's property since his 
credibility as an architect in the community depended on it. He said this permit was the last hurdle as the 
site permit was issued and not appealed. He intends to negotiate the issues raised with his neighbor and 
an appeal now would be an abuse of the process. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-058 

JOHN D. HENSALA, Appellant [4339 California Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on April 4, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Will Ng, permit to Erect a Building (three 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [dwelling units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/21/1 0/1 623S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) tc 
GRANT the permit with the CONDITION stipulated in the principals' agreement. 

SPEAKERS : 1. The Executive Secretary reported that the parties had reached an agreement and that 
the appellant and his attorney were on their way to New York to be on national television but had askec 
that the Board go ahead and uphold the permit with their agreement with the permit holder for i 
temporary fence attached as conditions of approval. The permit holder was present but did not speak. 

I 

(5) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed tc 
a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as providec 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal. 



(A) APPEAL NO. 00-070 

KANS YEE, Appellant [689-691 - 1 6 th Avenue. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on May 4, 2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/28/5681 . 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was 
absent) to REDUCE the penalty to three (3) times the regular fee. 



SPEAKERS : 1. Kans Yee, son of the appellant, said that many houses in the City have similar in-law 
apartments and yet his father was reported and must remove his. He said that the unit has not beer 
rented in ten years and that his father is getting old. The unit was added 30 years ago and his dad 

2 









MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 7, 2000 



injured in an auto accident in December, wants to make it legal space. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief 
Building Inspector, DBI, said he had little to add, that the permit is for the removal of an illegal basement 
kitchen which converts the building back to its lawful two-family use. He explained that creation of a third 
unit made the building an apartment house and triggered many additional requirements. 



(B) APPEAL NO. 00-072 

VICTORIA ESMAS, Appellant [1 465 - 1 4 th Avenue. 

vs. [Imposition of Penalty on May 15, 2000. 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [APPLICATION NO. 9919282. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant at the hearing. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-057 

SAWYER & GINETTE TERRELL, Appellants [2037 Hyde Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on April 7, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Jacques Janot, permit to Alter a Building 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [(create three-foot high concrete deck in 

[rear yard). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/24/5363. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was 
absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the top 1 foot of the 6 foot fence be lattice, and on 
further CONDITION that the top 1 foot of the guard rail also be lattice. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sawyer Terrell, appellant, asked that a portion of the proposed deck be removed so that 
it would not be so close to his house, and that the fence should remain at six feet. 2. Terrance Marseille, 
owner of the property at 1824 Allen Street, showed four photos of the subject rear yard and explained the 
history of its development. He fears the work on the project will result in the creation of an illegal unit. 
3. William Heijn, architect for the permit holder, showed photos of the deck and fence and explained that 
decks three feet or less above grade are permitted in rear yards under the Planning Code and fences six 
feet or less in height are permitted without permits under the Building Code. He said the plan is to 
landscape the yard; the railing on the deck must be 42 inches in height under the Building Code. No 
Public Comment for Either Side. 4. Jacques Janot, permit holder, in rebuttal described how the dirt 
was added to the yard and how the retaining wall keeps it in the yard. 5. Larry Badiner, Zoning 
Administrator, explained Planning Code provisions regarding decks and fences in rear yards. 
6. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, in answer to a Board question said that lattice work 
for the top foot of a six foot high fence was permitted by the Building Code and was not an issue. 



iu aooioi uic v^uv o ciiv 



- 



(7) 



(8) 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JUNE 7, 2000 



APPEAL NO. 00-059 



KATHRYN L. ANDERSON, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[347A Masonic Avenue. 
[Protesting issuance on April 4, 2000, to 
[John Mallory, permit to Alter a Building 
[(relocate wall between unit and garage; 
[level floor; change sink/wash basin 
[location; add electrical fixtures; remove 
[illegal unit and revert to original use). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/23/2634. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum wa 
absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the subject wall be relocated to the original location as 
on the sub-division map, and on further CONDITION that all bathrooms, sinks and kitchens built in the 
storage area be removed. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Christopher Visher, attorney for and husband of appellant, said he and his wife live in 
the upper of the two condos and the permit holder in the lower one, where he had created a rental unit 
without permission of the condo association. The matter had been sent by the Building Inspection 
Commission to the City Attorney and the permit holder had stipulated to a preliminary injunction requiring 
removal of the unit. He said the plans did not comply with the stipulated injunction. He said the permil 
holder had not discussed the plans with his wife and him and that they failed to meet the CC and R's. He 
described the problems with tenants over the years and how the parking scheme had been obstructed for 
the tandem space. 2. George Cresson, agent for permit holder, said that the court had said the permit 
holder must go back to the original use or he must legalize the existing use. He admitted that the wall 
had to be moved to allow the tandem parking space. He said the permit holder has a right to the 
common areas under an agreement with the appellant, though she was not honoring it, and the CC & R's 
do allow the lower unit to have habitable space in its lower portion if the Codes permit it. No Public 
Comment for Either Side. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that the plans had 
been signed, stamped and approved but he noted that they failed to relocate the wall which is a violation 
of the injunction. 4. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, said that the stairway encroachment on the 
parking space may be a problem, and that Planning prefers that stairs be within the storage area instead 
of in the garage. He said that the department's "Room-Down Matrix" would allow the stairs to lessen the 
likelihood of the creation of an illegal unit in the basement, and would permit a half-bath too. 5. Laureno 
Kornfield said that nothing in the Building Code prohibits the stairs. 



APPEAL NO. V00-062 

[201 Mansell Street. 



JOSEPHINE FRENDO, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[Denial on April 14, 2000, of Minimum 
[Lot Area and Rear Yard Variances 
[(subdivide an existing 25 x 170-foot 
[deep lot into two lots, resulting in an 
[existing one-story over garage, single 
[family dwelling and creation of a vacant 
[and buildable lot with proposed 
[construction of a new two-story over 
[garage, two-bedroom, single-family 
[dwelling on separate lots. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO 99.136V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JUNE 7, 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was 
absent) to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator's denial of the variance. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained that the variance was denied because of 
the lack of hardship and disruption of the lot pattern on the block. The proposed new lot would be less 
than the 1750sf necessary under the Code. 2. Van Ly, architect for appellant, said that the lot is 170 feet 
long and was originally three lots that were merged. Her client wants to split it into two, so that a house 
can be built on the new vacant one. She indicated that there was no opposition at the subdivision 
hearing and that no one would be disrupted by the project because of the lot slope. Public Comment 
for the Zoning Administrator: 3. Brian Bidinger, a neighbor, said he agrees with all the arguments 
opposing the variance, and explained the history of the lot and Mansell Street. 4. Manuel Gutierrez said 
it would be dangerous to build a house on the vacant proposed lot. 5. John Soe said he was the new 
owner of one of lots behind the subject lot and that he would lose a view of the bay if a house were built. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned jb§ meeting at 8:21 p.m. 




Amold/Y/K. Chin, President 




Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 



to|SMopzeiM9 *juai :imv 
aoou MIS c ipu BJi a «H B W 

aeiuao uot^Buuoiui ^uauiuJBAog 



"f/oo 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . jy^ _ q ~ m 



(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION: 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



ITEM A : 787 Castro Street. Letter from Jeffrey W. Adams requesting that the Board take jurisdiction 
over Building Permit Application No. 2000/04/21/7945 issued to Sarah Smith and Greg Smirin for 
restoration of legal occupancy (remove illegal unit, second kitchen and occupancy separation). 

Date issued April 21 , 2000 

Last day to appeal May 8, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction May 26, 2000 

ADOPTION OF FINDINGS : 

ITEM B : 3015 Washington Street. Appeal 00-029, Elizabeth Collet vs. Department of Building 
Inspection, Planning Department disapproval. Hearing May 17, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice President Saunders absent) to OVERRULE the Planning 
Department and GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the deck be pulled back six inches, with Section 
31 1 and Prop M FINDINGS from the Planning staff report which were incorporated by reference. 

Items (4A) and (4B) shall be heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 00-065 

BOSQUE & SMITH, LLC, Appellant [993 Tennessee Street. 

vs. [Denial on April 13, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Demolish a Building (plumbing storage 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [shed). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9826501. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 00-066 

BOSQUE & SMITH, LLC, Appellant [993 Tennessee Street. 

vs. [Denial on April 13, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (10 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9826500S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 14, 2000 - PAGE 2 



Items (5A) and (5B) and (5C) shall be heard together 



(5A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-067 



NATHALIE M. WONG, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



[768 El Camino Del Mar. 

[Protesting issuance on April 14, 2000, to 

[Barry and Lizanne Rosenstein, permit to 

[Alter a Building (remove front fence; 

[remove backfill against failing retaining 

[wall at rear yard). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/14/7245. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(5B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-068 



NATHALIE M. WONG, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



[768 El Camino Del Mar. 
[Protesting issuance on April 17, 2000, to 
[Barry and Lizanne Rosenstein, permit to 
[Alter a Building (remove fence/wall from 
[perimeter of property). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/17/7403. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(5C) 



APPEAL NO. 00-081 



NATHALIE M. WONG, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[768 El Camino Del Mar. 

[Protesting issuance on May 15, 2000, to 

[Barry & Lizanne Rosenstein, permit to 

[Alter a Building (extensive interior 

[remodeling to both floors and basement, 

[relocating of garage, and horizontal 

[extension to basement, first and second 

[floors). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9920588S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-075 



QIONG XIAN MAI, et al., Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[75B and 75 Lynch Street. 
[Protesting issuance on May 4, 2000, to 
[James Byrne, permit to Alter a Building 
[(remove two illegal units in basement 
[and convert to storage space only). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/04/9072. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items ( 7A) and (7B) shall be heard together 



(7A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-078 



JOHN K. SMITH, Appellant 

vs. 
PLANNING COMMISSION, Respondent 



[535 Mission Street. 

[Appeal of Condition 3A(4) based on 

[Finding 6A of Planning Commission 

[Motion 15,026 adopted April 13, 2000 

[requiring the project sponsor of the 24- 

jstory office building project to pursue 

[with due diligence the required City 

[approvals for closure of Shaw Alley from 

[1 1 :00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday through 

[Friday as part of its open space 

[requirement. 

[CASE NO. 1998.766X. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 14, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(7B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-079 



JOHN K. SMITH, Appellant 

vs. 
PLANNING COMMISSION, Respondent 



[535 Mission Street. 

[Appeal of findings and conditions set 

[forth in Planning Commission Motion 

[15,027 authorizing a 24-story office 

[building and incorporating by reference 

[all findings and conditions of Motion 

[15,026 requiring the project sponsor to 

[pursue with due diligence all required 

[City approvals for closure of Shaw Alley 

[from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday 

[through Friday as part of its open space 

[requirement. 

[CASE NO. 1998.766B. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Pemnit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 



These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeai/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to ail Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherir 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possibli 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader durin 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relati 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In ord 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remindi 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MU 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Mart 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessik ' 
services call 923-6142. 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across P< 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the pu 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people a 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on ycur rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francis 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance T< 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-nj 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind indivk 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.! 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pk 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, 
(415)703-0121. 



1 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



D &MTMENT 41 • • CO/7B 



-£ i-i f» 1 j. i _ :a \ a i*ij_ j. 



MINUTES OF THE 
REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 * 

to ° WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14. 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Allam El Qadah and 
Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; 
Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, 
Executive Secretary for the Board. 

ABSENT : Commissioner Carole Cullum. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : None 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 
SPEAKERS : None. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION: 



W 2 I 2QQ0 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



ITEM A : 787 Castro Street. Letter from Jeffrey W. Adams requesting that the Board take jurisdiction 
over Building Permit Application No. 2000/04/21/7945 issued to Sarah Smith and Greg Smirin for 
restoration of legal occupancy (remove illegal unit, second kitchen and occupancy separation). 

Date issued April 21 , 2000 

Last day to appeal May 8, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction May 26, 2000 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JUNE 14. 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 2-2-1 (Vice President Saunders & 
Commissioner El Qadah dissented, Commissioner Cullum was absent) to DENY the request for 
jurisdiction. 4 votes being necessary to grant a request for jurisdiction, the request was DENIED. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jeffrey Adams, requestor, submitted a letter to him that admits he was not served with 
notice of permit issuance until half the appeal period had elapsed and that he felt that fairness required 
that he be allowed to file an appeal late. He said a lay person has a different sense of time than a 
lawyer. 2. Andrew Zacks, attorney for the permit holder, described the specific steps he had taken to 
give notice to the requestor above and beyond the legal requirements and that he felt the law does not 
authorize the Board to allow a late filing under these circumstances. 

ADOPTION OF FINDINGS : 

ITEM B : 3015 Washington Street. Appeal 00-029, Elizabeth Collet vs. Department of BuHdin 
Inspection, Planning Department disapproval. Hearing May 17, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice President Saunders absent) to OVERRULE the Planning 
Department and GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the deck be pulled back six inches, with Sectiom 
31 1 and Prop M FINDINGS from the Planning staff report which were incorporated by reference. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum w; 
absent) to ADOPT the findings. 

SPEAKERS: None. 



Items (4A) and (4B) were heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 00-065 

BOSQUE & SMITH, LLC, Appellant [993 Tennessee Street. 

vs. [Denial on April 13, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Demolish a Building (plumbing storage 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [shed). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9826501. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 00-066 

BOSQUE & SMITH, LLC, Appellant [993 Tennessee Street. 

vs. [Denial on April 13, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (10 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9826500S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : The Executive Secretary polled the Board on whether they had reviewed and considered the 
environmental review document and all answered "Aye." Afterwards, upon motion by Commissionei 
Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to OVERRULE the Planning 
Department on both matters and GRANT the demolition permit, and GRANT the site permit with the 
original height of 49' 10" to be reinstated, with Prop. M FINDINGS from the Planning staff report to be 
incorporated by reference, and with Negative Declaration FINDINGS read into the record by 
Commissioner Mclnerney. 



.£ ii r* i ^.-i - - .n.nTi.1* — — — i— -■«■ ** #:xi_ j. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JUNE 14, 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, responded to a recent letter he received 
concerning his advocacy for the Commission. He described the Planning Commission's findings and 
decision to require the revision to plans to lower the roof 4' 10" in order for the project to be in character 
and scale with the neighborhood. 2. Alice Barkley, attorney for appellant, described the proposed project 
and argued that the original height is appropriate given the context and explained how the architect had 
worked with the neighbors to design an appropriate building. Public Comment for the Planning 
Commission: 3. Steve Williams, attorney for neighbors, explained that the Planning Commission had 
approved the project, not denied it, asking only that the height of the roof be reduced 4' 10" which the 
developer was not willing to do. He also explained the resolutions of policy regarding live-work projects 
and that the department has not yet delivered the design guidelines called for by the Commission. He 
said the design should have been cut down 10' to make it compatible with the neighborhood. 4. Rob 
Anderson, President of the Dogpatch group, said that the talented architect had ignored the scale of the 
neighborhood from the start and that he hoped the Board would do what it had done on the Minnesota 
Street project, that is, lower the roof line. 5. Paul Zingaro of 999 Tennessee said the proposed building 
should be a compromised height and not the tallest building. He felt the developers would benefit from a 
lower roofline and that the design changes made so far were unsolicited by the neighbors. 6. Constance 
Channon of 999 Tennessee urged the Board to uphold the Commission action since this was a pivotal 
property between commercial and residential areas and that lowering the height 4' 10" was not asking 
much. 7. Meb Gordon said she had met with the architect/developer several times and height was the 
only issue. She had analyzed the 1998 and 1999 versions of the plans and found that the later plans 
were for a larger building. 8. Steve Griffith said that the Planning staff had taken into account the whole 
area, while the Commission had looked at the block only in requiring the lowering of the height of the 
project. He said the architect was great and could deal with the slightly lowered height. 9. Surma Mauro 
said her iive-work building was 39 feet tall and the proposal would be 11' higher and out of scale. 10. 
Bruno Mauro said the dialog between neighbors and the architect was not authentic and that the architect 
was inflexible on the height issue. 11. Anna Dominski showed a March newspaper article about 
Dogpatch and said it had been wonderful to win at the Planning Commission which usually would not 
have given consideration to a neighborhood. She said the rendering was not accurate, and since the site 
was in the heart of Dogpatch the Board should help preserve this old neighborhood by upholding the 
Commission. 12. Mark Gordon, a local neighbor, quoted from the interim zoning controls for live-work 
projects and said the key issue was the scale of the project. 13. Janet Carpinelli said that this case could 
be precedent setting. She described how the zoning had changed in Dogpatch and that she supported a 
reasonable compromise on the height of the project. The 50' height does not work and will ruin the 
neighborhood and their quality of life as far as privacy goes. 14. Roy Neyhart lives at 1042 Tennessee 
and has seen two generations of change in the area and the slow whittling away of the row of residences. 
He said we've got to hang on to what little we have left, and keep the small structures or they will become 
extinct. 15. Rex Jones joined in urging the denial of the appeal. 16. David Siegel of 917 Minnesota 
described the Dogpatch area of five blocks which is easy to impact with a new building. He wants the 
spirit of compromise and the lowering of the height by 5'. He said 20% of families of the area were in the 
audience and he hopes the Board would respect their views. 17. Tony Dominski of 1004 Tennessee said 
the proposed building will have an overwhelming impact on the neighborhood. He showed on a map of 
the area which owners support the Planning Commission's action. He said he had done an exact 
rendering himself and that the developer's rendering was not accurate. 18. Christopher Cole lives on 
deHaro Street and that this was a Potrero Hill and Citywide issue and he showed pictures of proposals 
which had been disapproved, one of which resulted in the building of a successful one-family house, 
showing that requiring projects to be in context was in the interest of the developers as well as the 
neighbors. Public Comment in Support of the Appellant: 19. Joe O'Donoghue of the Residential 
Builders said that this architect was internationally recognized and quoted Yeats who said "my thoughts 
are pillars which passing dogs defile," to describe the architect's feelings of having his plans revised by 
the Planning Commission. He said the project had been reduced in size since 1998 since it had been 12 
units and was now 10 units. 20. Anne Subercaseaux described the area as a mixed one and said she 
wants to live in it since it was attractive to a designer. She said the architect had made adjustments to 



IU cICjsisi 11 ic v^uy o gnuiid iu uwv^w. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JUNE 14, 2000 



the plans and had scaled it down. She thought the cafe idea was a good one. 21. Mike Mood describee 
the character of the area and said the architect had made compromises and that the glass facade allowj 
light and is not massive. 22. John Norton said he was looking for a place to live and the proposec 
building would meet his needs as a writer without a car who needs to be near a Caltrain station. Ht 
thought the design will enhance the neighborhood. 23. Kerry Mellor, a designer, said that the roo 
elements of the design serve all the parties and that the proposal was gorgeous. 24. Carolina Tapia said 
she supports the architect's projects and believes that the Dogpatch association does not speak for a 
those who live there. She feels the proposal is good for the neighborhood. 25. Mark Donohue, ai 
architect, said he feels that the proposed design gives the area character with an openness that is goo< 
for the neighborhood. He thought the shape of the roof is unique and brings down the scale and tha 
renderings are always disputed. 



Items (5A) and (5B) and (5C) were heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 00-067 

NATHALIE M. WONG, Appellant [768 El Camino Del Mar. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on April 14, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Barry and Lizanne Rosenstein, permit to 

[Alter a Building (remove front fence; 

[remove backfill against failing retaining 

[wall at rear yard). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/14/7245. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 00-068 

NATHALIE M. WONG, Appellant [768 El Camino Del Mar. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on April 17, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Barry and Lizanne Rosenstein, permit to 

[Alter a Building (remove fence/wall from 

[perimeter of property). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/17/7403. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5C) APPEAL NO. 00-081 

NATHALIE M. WONG, Appellant [768 El Camino Del Mar. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 15, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Barry & Lizanne Rosenstein, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Alter a Building (extensive interior 

[remodeling to both floors and basement, 
[relocating of garage, and horizontal 
[extension to basement, first and second 
[floors). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9920588S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum ws 
absent) to GRANT all three permits. 



kg 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 14, 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Bijal Patel, attorney for appellant, said that the issue was that the three permits 
appealed failed to meet CEQA requirements and no environmental review had been done by Planning. 
She requested an analysis of all the permits in light of the steepness of the site and the potential impacts 
of the projects on her client's property next door. 2. Olle Lundberg, a civil engineer for the appellant, said 
that he had concerns about the retaining wall between the properties which had a history of catastrophic 
failures. 3. John Ware, a civil engineer for appellant, said that he had concerns about the overall poor 
quality of the property line walls, the steep slope of the area, and the proposal to extend to the rear. 
Public Comment in Support of the Appellant: 4. Lester Garrison on behalf of a neighbor who had 
spent $1.6 million since 1989 restoring her building described the soil conditions and asked for 
documents regarding what is going to be done and for a suspension until his client has appealed the 
latest permit. 5. John Sanger, attorney for permit holders, addressed the CEQA issue and said that all 
the permits were categorically exempt from environmental review. He described the work proposed and 
said he was unable to reach a settlement with the appellant. 6. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, said 
that the department had twice reviewed the permits and found them to be categorically exempt from 
CEQA requirements. 7. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that he had reviewed the 
permits and there were no structural issues in the two over-the-counter permits for which no plans are 
needed under the Code. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-075 



QIONG XIAN MAI, et al., Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[75B and 75 Lynch Street. 
[Protesting issuance on May 4, 2000, to 
[James Byrne, permit to Alter a Building 
[(remove two illegal units in basement 
[and convert to storage space only). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/04/9072. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellants at the meeting. 
SPEAKERS : None 

Items ( 7A) and (7B) were heard together 



(7A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-078 



JOHN K. SMITH, Appellant 

vs. 
PLANNING COMMISSION, Respondent 



[535 Mission Street. 

[Appeal of Condition 3A(4) based on 

[Finding 6A of Planning Commission 

[Motion 15,026 adopted April 13, 2000 

[requiring the project sponsor of the 24- 

[story office building project to pursue 

[with due diligence the required City 

[approvals for closure of Shaw Alley from 

[11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday through 

[Friday as part of its open space 

[requirement. 

[CASE NO. 1998.766X. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 









(7B) 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JUNE 14. 2000 



APPEAL NO. 00-079 



JOHN K. SMITH, Appellant 

vs. 
PLANNING COMMISSION, Respondent 



[535 Mission Street. 

[Appeal of findings and conditions set 

[forth in Planning Commission Motion 

[15,027 authorizing a 24-story office 

[building and incorporating by reference 

[all findings and conditions of Motion 

[15,026 requiring the project sponsor to 

[pursue with due diligence all required 

[City approvals for closure of Shaw Alley 

[from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday 

[through Friday as part of its open space 

[requirement. 

[CASE NO. 1998.766B. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was| 
absent) to GRANT both permits with the CONDITIONS stipulated in the principals' agreement. 

SPEAKERS: None. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjournecUhe meeting at 8:40 p.m. 







Arnold ,Y.K. Chin, President 

/ 




Robert H. Feldnrah, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (41 J 
362-5991. 

Government Information Center 
S.F. Public Library 
Main Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 



'/' 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

? ^ • 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2000 

Is 

5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL, ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . .y N ? ?nq 



(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE 15-DAY APPEAL PERIOD: 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



ITEM A : 3155 Scott Street. Letter from Yasin A. Salma, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over 
Building Permit Application No. 2000/02/03/964 issued to Sailing Billboards Outdoor Media to erect a 288 
square foot painted wall sign. 

Date issued February 3, 2000 

Last day to appeal February 1 8, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction June 1 , 2000 

ITEM B : 679 - 35 th Avenue. Letter from Steve Dupree, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over 
Building Permit Application No. 2000/4/21/7943 issued to Johnny Tan for the removal of an illegal unit. 

Date issued April 21, 2000 

Last day to appeal May 8, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction June 12, 2000 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM C : 361 Lombard Street. Letter from Laurence Komfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, requesting 
rehearing of Appeal No. 00-003, heard May 31, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the 
Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS and the following CONDITIONS: the metal pipes 
in the subject light well be painted a light color and a lattice fence no more than six feet in height be 
installed in the light well to cover up the metal pipes. 

ADOPTION OF FINDINGS : 

ITEM D : 361 Lombard Street. Adoption of Findings for above. 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM E : 1900 Van Ness Avenue. Letter from George Speir, attorney for Outdoor Systems Advertising, 
appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal 00-031, heard May 31, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Mclnerney, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum 
dissented) to UPHOLD the suspension of the permit to reduce and reinstall billboard. Four votes are 
necessary to overturn any departmental action and the suspension was UPHELD. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 28, 2000 - PAGE 2 



Items (4A), (4B) and (4C) shall be heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 00-085 

JON T MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealling conditions placed on Place of 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Entertainment permit granted May 24, 

[2000 regarding extending permits to 
[ground and upper levels; extending 
[hours Sunday to Wednesday to 4:00 
[a.m. and Thursday to Saturday to 6:00 
[a.m.; allowing patrons to enter until 
[closing; and not limiting to only three 
[times a year after hours operation 
[Sunday to Thursday. 
[PERMIT NO. 99494. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 00-086 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealling conditions placed on Dance 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Hall Keeper/After Hours permit granted 

[May 24, 2000. 

[PERMIT NO. 99493. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(4C) APPEAL NO. 00-087 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealling conditions placed on 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Extended-Hours Premises permit 

[granted May 24, 2000. 

[PERMIT NO. 99495. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

Items (5A) and (5B) shall be heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 00-046 

JOSEF D. COOPER & TRACY C. KIRKHAM, [1432-34 Kearny Street. 

Appellants [Protesting issuance on March 18, 2000, 

vs. [to Nathan and Nan Roth, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Demolish a Building (garage). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9621909. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 00-047 

JOSEF D. COOPER & TRACY C. KIRKHAM, [1432-34 Kearny Street. 

Appellants [Protesting issuance on March 18, 2000, 

vs. [to Nathan and Nan Roth, permit to Erect 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (three-story two-unit resi- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [dence). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9621 91 OS. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-061 

MARK & MARY LIPIAN, Appellants [290 Union Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on April 7, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Tribecca Properties LLC, permit to Alter 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [a Building (revision to site plan to show 

[existing windows at 1304-1/2 
[Montgomery Street, fire staircase and 
[balcony at 290 Union Street). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/07/6744. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 28, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-071 



WINNIE YAN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1150 Gilman Avenue. 
[Protesting issuance on May 2, 2000, to 
[Francisco Olla, permit to Alter a Building 
[(legalize ground floor space; rear 
[addition to upper and lower floors; build 
[deck over existing roof). 
[APPLICATION NO. 981 7361 S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-064 



RUSSIAN HILL NEIGHBORS, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[1480 Broadway Street. 
[Determination reissued April 10, 2000 of 
[the Zoning Administrator that the 
[parking lot is a legal permitted 
[conditional use which may continue to 
[operate under Planning Code Section 
[178(b) for the reason it existed prior to 
[the creation of the Polk Street 
[Neighborhood Commercial District. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal bhef. 

3. Department decision, permit, detemiination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 






' 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



ANNETTE SNYDER - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 362-5991 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html. 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 



A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

' linutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader duringJ 
meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people anc 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisccl 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance TasM 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Sar 
"-ancisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mai 
Oonna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site a 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individual: 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that the; 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, fa: 
(415)703-0121. 



i/< 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S F. PUBLIC LIBRARY - GOV. INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTEF 
DEPARTMENT 41 



(3) 



DOCUMENTS DEPT, 
MINUTES OF THE 

i fl JUL 1 1 2000 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

J =5? SAN hHANUIbUU 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2000 PUBLIC LIBRARY 
^ 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah and Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA), Planning Department; 
Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert 
Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. August Longo spoke in support of the ZA's determination and Walgreen's proposed 
relocation of Appeal 00-064, item 8 on the calendar, for the reason he had a meeting to attend and could 
not wait for the item to be called. 2. Walter Johnson of the Labor Council spoke in support of the ZA's 
determination of Appeal 00-064 also. 3. Robert "Woody" Woodall stood in support of the ZA's 
determination in Appeal 00-064 and left the room before the item was called. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS : 1. The Executive Secretary and the Board members thanked court reporter Annette 
Snyder for her efforts the past year and wished her well since this would be her last night as official court 
reporter. 2. President Chin said that he had only 2 hours of sleep on the plane that day returning early 
from Hong Kong, and asked Vice President Saunders to chair the meeting. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE 15-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : 3155 Scott Street. Letter from Yasin A. Salma, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over 
Building Permit Application No. 2000/02/03/964 issued to Sailing Billboards Outdoor Media to erect a 288 
square foot painted wall sign. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 28. 2000 



Date issued February 3, 2000 

Last day to appeal February 18, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction June 1 , 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissione 
El Qadah dissented) to DENY the request for jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Yasin Salma, requestor, explained that someone had chopped off his rooftop flue an 
that the permit holder had ignored his three certified letters requesting the flue be restored. 2. Fre 
Campagnoli, Jr., the attorney for the property owner and the sign company, asked the Board to not allo\ 
a late filing of the appeal and described several issues in dispute between the parties. He said thes 
issues, including an alleged trespass, were not matters the Board could act upon. 

ITEM B : 679 - 35 th Avenue. Letter from Steve Dupree, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction ove 
Building Permit Application No. 2000/4/21/7943 issued to Johnny Tan for the removal of an illegal unit. 

Date issued April 21, 2000 

Last day to appeal May 8, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction June 12, 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the request fc 
jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Steve Dupree, requestor, said he and his daughter live in the unit and that he had nc 
filed an appeal in time because of the letter he had received from the permit holder which said that th 
unit was to be legalized. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for permit holder, said that the permit had been properl 
issued and that he had suggested that the permit holder inform the tenant, though no notice wa| 
required. He said there was no way to legalize this unit in this legal one-family house. 3. Larry Badine 
ZA, said that the Planning staff was struggling with how to handle the removal of illegal units in light c 
the housing crisis, and that off-street parking variances to allow legalization was possible. He thought th 
Planning Commission may require Section 31 1 notices in the future. 



REQUEST FOR REHEARING: 






ITEM C : 361 Lombard Street. Letter from Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, requestin 
rehearing of Appeal No. 00-003, heard May 31, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, th 
Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS and the following CONDITIONS: the metal pipe 
in the subject light well be painted a light color and a lattice fence no more than six feet in height 
installed in the light well to cover up the metal pipes. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullurr the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to 
July 12, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, reported on his review of the appeal and his conclusio 
that all was lawful, but that he recommended the permit holder line the proposed lath fence with a met; 
sheet to insure that it not become a fire hazard. He said the permit holder refused to do it. He felt ther 
was a misunderstanding of the Board's action by the permit holder. 2. Steve Atkinson, attorney for th 
permit holder, said he had not heard of the option of a non-combustible lath fence six feet by ten fe< 
inside the lattice. He said it was not appropriate nor necessary and that it could generate a noise issue. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 28, 2000 



ADOPTION OF FINDINGS : 

ITEM D : 361 Lombard Street. Adoption of Findings for above. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to 
July 12, 2000. 

SPEAKERS: None 



REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM E : 1900 Van Ness Avenue. Letter from George Speir, attorney for Outdoor Systems Advertising, 
appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal 00-031, heard May 31, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Mclnerney, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum 
dissented) to UPHOLD the suspension of the permit to reduce and reinstall billboard. Four votes are 
necessary to overturn any departmental action and the suspension was UPHELD. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President 
Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to DENY the request for rehearing. 4 votes being 
necessary to grant a rehearing, the request was DENIED. 

SPEAKERS : 1. George Speir, attorney for Outdoor Systems, the appellant, requested a rehearing 
because he felt the Commissioners had not understood the Van Ness Avenue Special Sign District 
regulations which allow a sign of the type proposed. 2. Larry Badiner, ZA, read section 607.5 of the 
Planning Code to the Board, the definition of free standing signs, and said the appellant can file a new 
permit for a new sign on the site. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 28. 2000 



Items (4A), (4B) and (4C) shall be heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 00-085 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealing conditions placed on Place of 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Entertainment permit granted May 24, 

[2000 regarding extending permits to 
[ground and upper levels; extending 
[hours Sunday to Wednesday to 4:00 
[a.m. and Thursday to Saturday to 6:00 
[a.m.; allowing patrons to enter until 
[closing; and not limiting to only three 
[times a year after hours operation 
[Sunday to Thursday. 
[PERMIT NO. 99494. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 00-086 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealing conditions placed on Dance 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Hall Keeper/After Hours permit granted 

[May 24, 2000. 

[PERMIT NO. 99493. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(4C) APPEAL NO. 00-087 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealing conditions placed on 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Extended-Hours Premises permit 

[granted May 24, 2000. 

[PERMIT NO. 99495. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE these three matters t 
July 12, 2000, with directions to the Executive Secretary to ask the principals if they would agree to 
different date beyond July 12 th . 

SPEAKERS: None. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 28, 2000 



Items (5A) and (5B) shall be heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 00-046 

JOSEF D. COOPER & TRACY C. KIRKHAM, [1432-34 Kearny Street. 

Appellants [Protesting issuance on March 18, 2000, 

vs. [to Nathan and Nan Roth, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Demolish a Building (garage). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9621 909. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 00-047 

JOSEF D. COOPER & TRACY C. KIRKHAM, [1432-34 Kearny Street. 

Appellants [Protesting issuance on March 18, 2000, 

vs. [to Nathan and Nan Roth, permit to Erect 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (three-story two-unit resi- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [dence). 

[APPLICATION NO 9621 91 OS. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE these two matters to 
July 19, 2000, with no additional public testimony. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Tracy Kirkham, co-appellant, explained that she was about to put two nearly built units 
on the market and that the permit holders' permit was illegal in that its underpinning plan did not have 
permission. She wanted the Board to disapprove the permits so the process would be repeated while 
she sells her properties. She wants to avoid a hole in the ground next to her units. 2. Steve Atkinson, 
attorney for permit holders, said that the finest engineers were working on the shoring plan and he 
suggested the Board approve the permits on condition that any revisions to the underpinning plan be 
appealable to the Board. 3. Loring Wylie, structural engineer for the permit holders, said he had 
designed for the highest level of safety, or he could do a plan for the Roth's property alone which would 
provide safety, with some settlement. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the underpinning plan 
would be under a separate alteration permit, not under the site permit. He said the engineers were the 
best. He said this type of dispute is usually handled by the parties and not the City. 5. Judith Boyajian, 
Deputy City Attorney, said that addenda to site permits are not appealable to the Board, but a new 
alteration permit for a shoring plan would be. 6. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that Planning requires that a 
demolition permit be accompanied by a permit for a replacement structure, to avoid a hole in the ground. 
7. Elizabeth England, attorney for the permit holders, said it is difficult to schedule contractors now under 
indefinite conditions, as well as insurance, and bids on other things. They may need sixty days to do the 
sequencing plans. 



(6) 



(7) 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 28. 2000 



APPEAL NO. 00-061 



MARK & MARY LIPIAN, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[290 Union Street. 

[Protesting issuance on April 7, 2000, to 
[Tribecca Properties LLC, permit to Alter 
[a Building (revision to site plan to show 
[existing windows at 1304-1/2 
[Montgomery Street, fire staircase and 
[balcony at 290 Union Street). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/07/6744. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellants prior to hearing. 



APPEAL NO. 00-071 



WINNIE YAN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1150 Gilman Avenue. 
[Protesting issuance on May 2, 2000, to 
[Francisco Olla, permit to Alter a Building 
[(legalize ground floor space; rear 
[addition to upper and lower floors; build 
[deck over existing roof). 
[APPLICATION NO. 981 7361 S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 GRANT the permit, wr 
directions to the Chief Building Inspector to monitor the maintenance issues on the subject property. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Winnie Yan, appellant, speaking Chinese through interpreter Dorothy Wong, said th 
the permit holder's house was creating humidity that is making her children sick and that it held an illeg 
kitchen whose smoke disturbed her family and several other problems with the project. She asked tr 
Board to disapprove the permit to stop the noise and loss of her privacy. She said that the permit hold' 
had lied. 2. Claire Pilcher, attorney for the permit holder, said that the permit was to legalize the woj. 
done and that the illegal windows would be removed. She said her clients were trying to be goc 
neighbors to Ms. Yan and she listed the revisions made voluntarily to suit the neighbors. She said h 
client's house could not cause humidity since the yard was full of sunshine as in the photograph and th 
air can circulate between the houses. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the case was essentially as Ms. Pilch 
presented it, and that the permit complies with the Planning Code which allows 75% of the lot ; 
buildable area. He said the project was in scale with the neighborhood and that any construction wjl 
block some sunlight. He said dampness was seldom an issue at Planning. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CE 
DBI, said that the holes in the building would have to be plugged up, and that each property must provi< 
its own air, light and ventilation, and that pipes could run up the side of the building on the outside. 
Carlos Olla, son of the permit holder, said that steam comes out of the laundry not the kitchen and th t 
they were just trying the legalize the back of their house. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JUNE 28, 2000 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-064 



RUSSIAN HILL NEIGHBORS, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[1480 Broadway Street. 
[Determination reissued April 10, 2000 of 
[the Zoning Administrator that the 
[parking lot is a legal permitted 
[conditional use which may continue to 
[operate under Planning Code Section 
[178(b) for the reason it existed prior to 
[the creation of the Polk Street 
[Neighborhood Commercial District. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject 
determination. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained that the subject parking lot had originally been a gas 
station and then a CSAA lot and now would serve customers of the relocated Walgreen's and is deemed 
an automatic conditional use which can continue to operate. He said he used the Walgreen's lot on 24 th 
Street as did many neighbors and he expected the same would happen here. 2. Claire McGhee, 
president of the appellant group, said that they were not opposing the project in general, but were only 
asking for a conditional use hearing to set conditions for use of the parking lot which has served a variety 
of purposes during the past years. She said '.hat the Sullivan letter last December mentioned a CU 
process and she was disappointed by this determination and feels she was bamboozled. 3. Daniel 
Sullivan, agent for determination holder, said that when he wrote in December he did not know that the 
lot would be exempted from the CU process and that the Planning policy was unclear on this issue, but 
that all their discussions with Planning were done with open correspondence, and that he asked for a 
determination in November and did not receive it until March. He said his client would consider a lot 
operator's bid to use it at night for valet parking as discussed with Supervisor Becerril. He said that 
billboards were often permitted on gas station sites in NC zones as non-conforming uses, but he had not 
researched the two billboards on this site. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned JP? meeting at 8:58 p.m. 





Arnold Yi<. Chin, President 




Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
362-5991. 






Government Information Center 
S.F. Public Library 
Main Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

£ 7* f- 



50 — »■ 



I/a/o 



o 



WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2000 

^_ 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

DOCUMENTS DEP 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . JUL ) ] 



(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 
REQUEST FOR REHEARING: 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



ITEM A : 361 Lombard Street. Letter from Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, requesting 
rehearing of Appeal No. 00-003, heard May 31, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the 
Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS and the following CONDITIONS: the metal pipes 
in the subject light well be painted a light color and a lattice fence no more than six feet in height be 
installed in the light well to cover up the metal pipes. 

ADOPTION OF FINDINGS : 

ITEM B : 361 Lombard Street. Adoption of Findings for above. 



REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM C : 616 Rolph Street. Letter from Judith M. West requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over 
Building Permit Application No. 2000/03/28/5622S issued to Xiang-Si Lei for a rear 2-1/2 story horizontal 
addition. 

Date issued June 2, 2000 

Last day to appeal June 19, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction July 3, 2000 

ITEM D : 75B and 75C Lynch Street. Letter from Hung Yin Cheng requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/05/04/9072 issued to Jim Byrne to remove two 
illegal units at basement and convert to storage only. 

Date issued May 4, 2000 

Last day to appeal May 1 9, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction July 3, 2000 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-036 

MATTHEW WONG, Appellant [Revocation on March 2, 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion No. 942. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 200-17. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 12, 2000 - PAGE 2 



Items (5A), (5B) and (5C) shall be heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 00-085 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealling conditions placed on Place of 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Entertainment permit granted May 24, 

[2000 regarding extending permits to 
[ground and upper levels; extending 
[hours Sunday to Wednesday to 4:00 
[a.m. and Thursday to Saturday to 6:00 
[a.m.; allowing patrons to enter until 
[closing; and not limiting to only three 
[times a year after hours operation 
[Sunday to Thursday. 
[PERMIT NO. 99494. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 00-086 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealling conditions placed on Dance 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Hall Keeper/After Hours permit granted 

[May 24, 2000. 

[PERMIT NO. 99493. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5C) APPEAL NO. 00-087 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealling conditions placed on 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Extended-Hours Premises permit 

[granted May 24, 2000. 

[PERMIT NO. 99495. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-040 

JACQUELINE STAVI, Appellant [304 Eureka Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on March 10, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Andrew and Kathleen Lomas, permit 

[to Alter a Building (remove existing non- 
[complying stair and replace with 
[complying stair; smoke detectors). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/10/4097. 
[PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AFTER 
[TESTIMONY MAY 3, 2000. 
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
[TODAY. 

(7) CONSENT ITEM : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to 
vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provide 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal. 

(A) APPEAL NO. 00-091 

NINA KITOVER, Appellant [1 08 Monterey Blvd. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on June 19, 2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/21/7902. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8) APPEAL NO. 00-076 

PAUL McKENNA, Appellant [5301 Mission Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 8, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Main-Kai Liu, permit to Erect a Building 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [(three-story five-unit dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9914207. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 12, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-100 



LISLE & ROSLYN PAYNE, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[3630 Jackson Street. 

[Protesting issuance on June 14, 2000, 

[to Garrett and Lori Van Wagoner, permit 

[to Alter a Building (new bay window at 

[rear facade first floor and balcony 

[above). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9909429S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-028 



JANE SEGAL, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2940 Folsom Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated February 11, 2000, that 
[the establishment of a commercial 
[kitchen with or without cafe is not in 
[conformity with the use limitations of 
[RH-2 zoning provisions and is not 
[permitted, and two-family use is 
[permitted, and with Conditional Use 
[Authorization of the Planning Commis- 
[sion four units could be permitted, since 
[the lot is 7,475 square feet in area. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. V00-041 



ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2090 Jackson Street. 

[Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

[to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 

[garage and one-story building addition 

[in the required yard of a single family 

[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(12) 



APPEAL NO. V00-048 



ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[50 Magnolia/1755 Chestnut Streets. 
[Denial on March 22, 2000, of Rear Yard 
[Variance to relocate one dwelling unit 
[from the 1755 Chestnut Street building 
[to the existing rear carriage house at 50 
[Magnolia Street by renovating and 
[adding a floor and roof deck to the 
[existing building, setting back the new 
[floor 15 feet from Magnolia Street; the 
[proposal also includes two 2'x7' 
[extensions into the lightwells of the 
[existing 1755 Chestnut Street building; 
[the total number of dwelling units will 
[remain six units. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.164V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, penvit, detemiination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 



These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or persor 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for thei: 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minuter 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes tc 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed sever 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request i 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer anc 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please ca 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, c 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeai/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Boarc 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 166* 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the schedulei 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comment 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of thw 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board a 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to ail Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff an< 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance c 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised a 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board c 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or an 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in th< 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant publi 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catheri 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possibb 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader duri 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relat 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In ore 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remind 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City L 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible Mlk 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Mar; 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessi|l 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across p|i 
Street from City Hall. 



Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available 



KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 



. 



Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the puk 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct n 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Franci 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance T 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, : 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-i 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individual 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that ll 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-1 6. iM 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, plels 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510. web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/,! : a 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY - GOV. INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTEF 
DEPARTMENT 41 



i 



MINUTES OF THE 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

^ * DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2000 

l TT JUL 2 1 2000 

5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL ROOM 416 S AN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, 
Allam El Qadah and John Mclnemey. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Gerald Green, Director of Planning and Acting Zoning 
Administrator (Acting ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building 
Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS : 

SPEAKERS : 1. Commissioner Mclnemey asked the Deputy City Attorney about a Court of Appeals case 
regarding a massage parlor heard by the Board. 2. Ms. Boyajian said she would research it and report to 
the Board on the outcome. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : 361 Lombard Street. Letter from Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, requesting 
rehearing of Appeal No. 00-003, heard May 31, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the 
Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS and the following CONDITIONS: the metal pipes 
in the subject light well be painted a light color and a lattice fence no more than six feet in height be 
installed in the light well to cover up the metal pipes. 

ACTION : This request for rehearing was WITHDRAWN by Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, prior to 
consideration. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 12. 2000 



SPEAKERS : None. 
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS : 

ITEM B : 361 Lombard Street. Adoption of Findings for above. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to ADOPT the findings. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM C : 616 Rolph Street. Letter from Judith M. West requesting that the Board take jurisdiction ovetj 
Building Permit Application No. 2000/03/28/5622S issued to Xiang-Si Lei for a rear 2-1/2 story horizontal 
addition. 

Date issued June 2, 2000 

Last day to appeal June 19, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction July 3, 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissionej 
Mclnerney dissented) to GRANT the request for jurisdiction. 4 votes being necessary to grant a reques 
for jurisdiction, the request was DENIED. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Judith West, requestor, asked the Board to allow her to file late because Planning ha< 
assured her when she went to Europe that the permit would not be issued in her absence and it was. 
2. Patrice Fambrini, agent for the permit holder, said that the requestor had failed to file twice, onc< 
during the 30 day discretionary review period and once again during the 15 day appeal period whicl 
ended after her return from oversees. 3. Walter Wong, in response to a question from Commissioner E 
Qadah, described the design revisions made by the permit holder to accommodate the requestor. 

ITEM D : 75B and 75C Lynch Street. Letter from Hung Yin Cheng requesting that the Board tak< 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/05/04/9072 issued to Jim Byrne to remove tw 
illegal units at basement and convert to storage only. 



Date issued May 4, 2000 

Last day to appeal May 1 9, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction July 3, 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissione 
Mclnerney dissented) to CONTINUE this matter to July 19, 2000 with no additional public testimony. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Gary Chin, agent for requestor, asked the Board to allow a late filing because the Chen 
family never got notice of the permit affecting their unit, and they were not able to testify at the othc 
tenants' hearing because that appeal was withdrawn prior to hearing. 2. Jim Byrne, permit holder, sai 
that the three illegal units to be removed were built without permits by the former owner and that h 
intended to use the space for his office since he lost his space downtown. He said he brought 
Cantonese speaking person to translate for the Chengs and would offer them more than he had offere 
the other tenant to move out. He said the Chengs knew of the issuance of the permit yet did not file A 
appeal. He said he had a SBA loan but his office rent was being tripled so he needed to move into h 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 12, 2000 



own space and that five of his six employees live in San Francisco. He agreed to continue the matter 
one week to try to settle it. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-036 

MATTHEWWONG, Appellant [Revocation on March 2, 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion No. 942. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 200-17. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President 
Saunders & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the revocation. 4 votes being necessary to 
overturn any departmental action, the Taxicab Commission's decision to revoke the appellant's medallion 
was UPHELD. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Tom Owen, Deputy City Attorney representing the Taxicab Commission, said that the 
medallion was revoked for failure of its holder to drive the required number of shifts. The holder is a full 
time deputy sheriff for the City who drove five times in two and a half years when 185 shifts a year are 
required. 2. Sgt. William Simpson, SFPD, Taxi Detail, said in response to Commissioner El Qadah's 
question that the department investigates complaints and interviews permit holders to determine the 
merits of the case. The evidence is given to the disciplinary body for hearing. 3. Cindy Lee, attorney for 
appellant, in response to President Chin's statement that he is an adversary of her in pending litigation, 
said she felt there was no prejudice to her client if President Chin participated in this appeal and she 
wanted a full Board to consider this appeal. Her client is not an attorney and did not know of the 
complaint brought against him and had been denied due process by the Taxicab Commission, since he 
did not get the packet of materials until after the hearing. Based on case law and her client's hardships 
and lack of ability to understand the procedure, that the Board should overrule the Commission's action 
and reduce the penalty to one less harsh than revocation. Public Comment for the City: 4. Ralph 
Jacobson, a driver for Yellow Cab, spoke in support of the City and urged the Board to support 
revocation for failure to drive since medallion holders know the rules when they take medallions and still 
fail to drive while collecting $1 800 a month for use of the medallion. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JULY 12. 2000 



Items (5A), (5B) and (5C) were heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 00-085 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealing conditions placed on Place of 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Entertainment permit granted May 24, 

[2000 regarding extending permits to 
[ground and upper levels; extending 
[hours Sunday to Wednesday to 4:00 
[a.m. and Thursday to Saturday to 6:00 
[a.m.; allowing patrons to enter until 
[closing; and not limiting to only three 
[times a year after hours operation 
[Sunday to Thursday. 
[PERMIT NO. 99494. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 00-086 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealing conditions placed on Dance 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Hall Keeper/After Hours permit granted 

[May 24, 2000. 

[PERMIT NO. 99493. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5C) APPEAL NO. 00-087 

JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant [540 Howard Street. 

vs. [Appealing conditions placed on 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Extended-Hours Premises permit 

[granted May 24, 2000. 

[PERMIT NO. 99495. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : These three matters were RESCHEDULED to August 23, 2000, prior to hearing. 
SPEAKERS: None. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 12, 2000 



(6) APPEAL NO. 00-040 

JACQUELINE STAVI, Appellant [304 Eureka Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on March 10, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Andrew and Kathleen Lomas, permit 

[to Alter a Building (remove existing non- 
[complying stair and replace with 
[complying stair; smoke detectors). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/10/4097. 
[PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AFTER 
[TESTIMONY MAY 3, 2000. 
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
[TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the alteration permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. The Executive Secretary announced that the permit holder had withdrawn his permit. 
2. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, responded to Commissioner Mclnerney's question about the 
abandonment of an issued permit and said that there is no process for it in the Building Code except to 
wait for the permit to expire if it's not implemented. 3. Kenneth Natkin, attorney for the appellant, said his 
client would prefer for the permit to be disapproved by the Board and that they were prepared to do 
whatever is required by the Department of Building Inspection. No public comment. 



(7) CONSENT ITEM : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to a 
vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal. 

(A) APPEAL NO. 00-091 

NINA KITOVER, Appellant [108 Monterey Blvd. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on June 19, 2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/21/7902. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to REDUCE the penalty to two (2) 
times the regular fee. 

SPEAKERS : None. The appellant was present but did not speak. 

(8) APPEAL NO. 00-076 

PAUL McKENNA, Appellant [5301 Mission Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 8, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Main-Kai Liu, permit to Erect a Building 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [(three-story five-unit dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9914207. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with the 
CONDITIONS stipulated in the principals' agreement submitted by Jeremy Paul prior to hearing. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JULY 12. 2000 



SPEAKERS : None. Jeremy Paul was present for the appellant but did not speak. 

(9) APPEAL NO. 00-100 

LISLE & ROSLYN PAYNE, Appellants [3630 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on June 14, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Garrett and Lori Van Wagoner, permit 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [to Alter a Building (new bay window at 

[rear facade first floor and balcony 

[above). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9909429S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the alteration permit on 
CONDITION that a Notice of Special Restrictions be recorded for the subject property that prohibits any 
door leading to the subject balcony, and that restricts the use of the subject balcony for the display of 
plants and for emergency egress only. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lisle Payne, co-appellant, said that he has tried to negotiate a settlement with the permit 
holders to no avail and thus was making a new proposal. 2. Tay Via, attorney for the appellants, 
introduce the new proposal which is the offer made in November 1999 by the permit holders, and she 
introduced Mr. Payne's architect, Douglas Thornley, to explain the proposal. 3. Douglas Thornley, 
architect for the appellants, said that the approved plans result in an addition creating severe privacy 
issues for his clients but the proposal would shorten the addition and cause no problem since it would be 
aligned with the Payne's rear wall. 4. Jeremy Paul, agent for the permit holders, using a PowerPoint 
presentation, explained that the November 1999 proposal was made in good faith by his clients but was 
rejected by the appellants and was now unacceptable to the permit holders. He said that there was no 
real privacy issues here but his clients were willing to not use the proposed balcony except for planters; 
and emergency egress from windows with the door eliminated. He felt the appellants' proposal was ugly 
and not consistent with the Julia Morgan-designed house. 5. Duncan McLeod, architect for the permit 
holders, in response to a question from Commissioner Mclnerney regarding the significance of the 
alternative design, said that his clients intend to keep the project in architectural harmony with the Julia 
Morgan design, trying to blend the addition into the house so well it will not be identifiable as an addition: 
and he emphasized that the Board has already cut the design back one foot, as well as other 
compromises made earlier. He said deleting the door to the balcony and using an automatic watering 
system for the planters on it and the windows for a secondary means of emergency egress would be 
acceptable to his clients. No public comment. 

(10) APPEAL NO. 00-028 
JANE SEGAL, Appellant [2940 Folsom Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated February 11, 2000, that 

[the establishment of a commercial 
[kitchen with or without cafe is not in 
[conformity with the use limitations of 
[RH-2 zoning provisions and is not 
[permitted, and two-family use is 
[permitted, and with Conditional Use 
[Authorization of the Planning Commis- 
[sion four units could be permitted, since 
[the lot is 7,475 square feet in area. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JULY 12. 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE to July 19, 2000 
with no additional public testimony. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Gerald Green, acting ZA and Planning Director, explained the issue of the determination 
as whether there has been continuous commercial use of the premises in this RH-2 property sufficient to 
deem it a lawful non-conforming use that can be used for the proposed incubator kitchen for low-income 
Hispanic women. He said there is not enough evidence, but that an argument can be made that the 
facility can be deemed a community facility that can be authorized by the Planning Commission as part of 
the conditional use application for the three units to be built on the site. 2. Brett Gladstone, attorney for 
appellant, said the project could not be a community facility because it is intended to be for profit. The 
women need to make a profit to support themselves and their families. There is no Code violation here 
since there is evidence that the premises have been in commercial use continuously, making it a non- 
complying commercial use suitable for use as a for-profit incubator kitchen. Property was used as a 
storage facility for a contractor and as a rehearsal studio for a musician who signed a commercial lease 
which was submitted in evidence. The PG&E bills submitted also are evidence of continuous commercial 
use. A cafe can't be part of the project for lack of space. 3. Jane Segal, appellant, said she bought the 
property with the intention of using it to benefit women in the Mission with a mixed use of residential and 
commercial. She rejected offers that would have meant great profits in order to go forward with the 
project. Public comment for the appellant: 4. Patricia Chang of the Women's Foundation said she had 
created the match for the incubator kitchen use on the premises so that women without capital could start 
their food businesses and become self-sufficient. 5. Barbara Johnson said she supported the project 
because it would enable women to become economically self-sufficient. 6. Mercedes Samsoras said she 
has been working with Latino women for ten years and in her view this was a wonderful project that 
deserves the Board's support. 7. Julie Dorf, a resident at 2970 Folsom since 1989 said she strongly 
supports the project and welcomes it to her neighborhood. 8. Ethelvina Sanchez translated by Elizabeth 
Milos said she had set up a catering business using St. Peter's Church kitchen but they had to leave and 
the proposed project would allow them to continue their business. 9. Juanita Flores translated by 
Elizabeth Milos, said this project is very important and will allow her and other low-income women to 
become self-sufficient and to take care of their children without having to leave the neighborhood for work 
each day. 10. Ana Vilanova translated by Elizabeth Milos said she was very happy that this incubator 
kitchen is to be built in the heart of the Mission. 11. Tomoko Lipp said the project will be a great 
revitalizing force in the area. 12. Trudy Martin, a homeowner and small business operator in the Mission, 
read to the Board a letter from Sonia Melara in support of the appeal. Public comment in support of 
the ZA: 13. Louisa Bradley said that cooking and baking businesses were out of place on this 
residentially zoned block, and that while the building was used for years as storage and for music 
practice, that it had not been commercial use. 14. Don Bradley said he is a property owner in the area 
and that the neighborhood has improved a lot recently with the old bakery gone. He said the evidence of 
commercial use here were phony excuses and fabrications. The project is a worthy one that he would 
support, but no at this residentially zoned location. 

(11) APPEAL NO. V00-041 

ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants [2090 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 
[garage and one-story building addition 
[in the required yard of a single family 
[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to July 26, 2000 prior to hearing. 

7 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 12, 2000 



SPEAKERS: None. 



(12) 



APPEAL NO. V00-048 



ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[50 Magnolia/1755 Chestnut Streets. 
[Denial on March 22, 2000, of Rear Yard 
[Variance to relocate one dwelling unit 
[from the 1755 Chestnut Street building 
[to the existing rear carriage house at 50 
[Magnolia Street by renovating and 
[adding a floor and roof deck to the 
[existing building, setting back the new 
[floor 15 feet from Magnolia Street; the 
[proposal also includes two 2'x7' 
[extensions into the light wells of the 
[existing 1755 Chestnut Street building; 
[the total number of dwelling units will 
[remain six units. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.164V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to September 6, 2000 prior to hearing. 
SPEAKERS: None. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjournedtftfe meeting at 9:14 p.m. 





Arnolgyfl.K. Chin, President 







Rotfert-R FeldmirT Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415 
576-0700. 



*>|SMopzp.iM9 *-uai :imw 









(DO 



,?3 

)0 REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 



(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : 75B and 75C Lynch Street. Letter from Hung Yin Cheng requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/05/04/9072 issued to Jim Byrne to remove two 
illegal units at basement and convert to storage only. Continued from July 12, 2000. 

Date issued May 4, 2000 

Last day to appeal May 1 9, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction July 3, 2000 

ITEM B : 537 Divisadero Street. Letter from Robert Speer for the Planning Association of Divisadero 
Street requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/06/09/2294 
issued to Howard A. Cooper for tenant improvements. 

Date issued June 9, 2000 

Last day to appeal June 26, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction June 30, 2000 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-028 

JANE SEGAL, Appellant [2940 Folsom Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated February 11, 2000, that 

[the establishment of a commercial 
[kitchen with or without cafe is not in 
[conformity with the use limitations of 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. gX^ttSL? use "?s 

[permitted, and with Conditional Use 
JUL 1 *\ 2000 [Authorization of the Planning Commis- 

n [sion four units could be permitted, since 

SAN FRANCISOU j the )ot js 7 475 square feet in area 

PUBLIC LIBRARY [PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 12, 2000. FOR FUR- 
THER CONSIDERATION TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 19. 2000 - PAGE 2 



Items (5A) and (5B) shall be heard together 



(5A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-046 



JOSEF D. COOPER & TRACY C. KIRKHAM, 

Appellants 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1432-34 Kearny Street. 
[Protesting issuance on March 18, 2000, 
[to Nathan and Nan Roth, permit to 
[Demolish a Building (garage). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9621909. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED JUNE 28, 2000. FOR FUR- 
THER CONSIDERATION TODAY. 



(5B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-047 



JOSEF D. COOPER & TRACY C. KIRKHAM, 

Appellants 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1432-34 Kearny Street. 
[Protesting issuance on March 18, 2000, 
[to Nathan and Nan Roth, permit to Erect 
[a Building (three-story two-unit resi- 
dence). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9621 91 OS. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED JUNE 28, 2000. FOR FUR- 
THER CONSIDERATION TODAY. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-077 



HIROHIDE & JONIE TAKATSUJI, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[326 -18 th Avenue. 

[Denial on May 9, 2000, of permit to Alter 

[a Building (construct two-car parking 

[garage with roof deck at front and 

[rebuild front stairs). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9914207. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-109 



MARK BRADY, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[640 Wisconsin Street. 
[Determination by the Acting Zoning 
[Administrator dated July 6, 2000 
[requiring revisions to approved plans 
[regarding front setback requirements. 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/14/1841. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 






These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 



A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 1 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct th< 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people an< 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S F PUBLIC LIBRARY -GOV. INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTEI 
DEPARTMENT 41 






JUL 2 8 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
^MINUTES OF THE PUBUC L | B rarv 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 ? 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Commissioners Carole Cullum, Allam El Qadah and John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Isolde Wilson, representing the Planning Department and the 
Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building 
Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

ABSENT : Vice President Sabrina Saunders. 

Zina Bailey, substitute for Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who 
intended to testify during the meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board wiii be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Patricia Vaughey thanked the Board for denying the recent request for jurisdiction over a 
permit at the Edward II hotel. 2. Joe O'Donoghue spoke in support of the permit holder Jim Byrne, an 
attorney for the Irish community, and asked the Board to deny the request for jurisdiction being 
considered under Item 3A. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS : 1. Commissioner Cullum apologized to the public and to the other Board members for 
being late for the meeting. 2. Commissioner Mclnerney said he understood now that the Court of 
Appeals case he had referred to last week was a win for the City and the court had upheld the Board's 
decision in Chew vs. Lau . 3. Commissioner El Qadah said he applauds Supervisor Mark Leno's efforts to 
remove illegal billboards in the City and he asked the Planning representative if Planning had tagged any 
illegal signs lately. 4. Isolde Wilson, planner representing the Zoning Administrator said she would check 
with the staff and report back to the Board. 5. Commissioner Cullum thanked Planning Director Gerald 
Green for his efforts regarding the women's kitchen incubator project and Jane Segal after the public 
hearing last week. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 19. 2000 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : 75B and 75C Lynch Street. Letter from Hung Yin Cheng requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/05/04/9072 issued to Jim Byrne to remove twoi 
illegal units at basement and convert to storage only. Continued from July 12, 2000. 

Date issued May 4, 2000 

Last day to appeal May 1 9, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction July 3, 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders! 
was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jim Byrne, permit holder, reported that no agreement had been reached between him 
and his tenants. 2. Gary Gin, representing the Cheng family who have requested jurisdiction over Mr. 
Byrne's permit, agreed that no agreement had been reached. In response to Commissioner El Qadah's 
question he said that Mr. Byrne had offered the Chengs more than the other tenants but that their 
situation was different. 



j; 



ITEM B : 537 Divisadero Street. Letter from Robert Speer for the Planning Association of Divisaderc 
Street requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/06/09/229^ 
issued to Howard A. Cooper for tenant improvements. 

Date issued June 9, 2000 

Last day to appeal June 26, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction June 30, 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Mclnerne; 
dissented, Vice President Saunders was absent) to GRANT the request for jurisdiction. 4 votes beinc 
necessary to grant a request for jurisdiction, the request was DENIED. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Adham Nasser for Robert Speer, the requestor, said that he was opening a vegetaria^ 
restaurant next door to the check cashing business and the latter will put his investment at risk. He sai< ; 
that no notice was sent by Planning that the former art gallery space would become a check cashind 
business, which will bring in customers from outside the area and will undercut the recent improvement; 
to the neighborhood. 2. David Edge, regional director of the check cashing firm which operates thd 
business, said the business will promote the neighborhood and will look like and be operated like a bank 1 
3. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that no notification of permit issuance is required by the Building 
and Planning Codes for a change in commercial use of space and permits need to be posted for the 
inspector and not for the public and may be posted indoors where the public can not see the permit. 



r\r\r*i imcmtc ncoi 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JULY 19, 2000 



(4) 



APPEAL NO. 00-028 



JANE SEGAL, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2940 Folsom Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated February 11, 2000, that 
[the establishment of a commercial 
[kitchen with or without cafe is not in 
[conformity with the use limitations of 
[RH-2 zoning provisions and is not 
[permitted, and two-family use is 
[permitted, and with Conditional Use 
[Authorization of the Planning Commis- 
[sion four units could be permitted, since 
[the lot is 7,475 square feet in area. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED JULY 12, 2000. FOR FUR- 
THER CONSIDERATION TODAY. 



ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to further consideration. 
SPEAKERS: None. 



Items (5A) and (5B) shall be heard together 



(5A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-046 



JOSEF D. COOPER & TRACY C. 



KIRKHAM, 
Appellants 



vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1432-34 Kearny Street. 
[Protesting issuance on March 18, 2000, 
[to Nathan and Nan Roth, permit to 
[Demolish a Building (garage). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9621909. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED JUNE 28, 2000. FOR FUR- 
THER CONSIDERATION TODAY. 



(5B) 



JOSEF D. COOPER & TRACY C 



APPEAL NO. 00-047 

KIRKHAM, [1432-34 Kearny Street. 



Appellants 



vs. 



DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on March 18, 2000, 
[to Nathan and Nan Roth, permit to Erect 
[a Building (three-story two-unit resi- 
dence). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9621910S. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED JUNE 28, 2000. FOR FUR- 
THER CONSIDERATION TODAY. 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders was 
absent) to REVOKE both the demolition permit and the site permit. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 19, 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Tracy Kirkham, co-appellant, said she wanted to make a counter status report to the 
Board in response to the written status report submitted by the permit holders. She said the Board 
continued the matter to allow for negotiations on the shoring or underpinning issue and she described the 
history of correspondence between her and the permit holders, but that the permit holders actually have 
no bids and no insurance and may not intend to begin the project until next Spring, if at all, and that shej 
still feels the best solution is for the Board to disapprove these permits and have the process start again 
with negotiations. She related rumors in the neighborhood regarding the permit holders' intentions to get 
a permit in under proposed regulations that have not been enacted. She agreed to a one week 
continuance. 2. Timothy Tosta, attorney for permit holders, said that a shoring permit application is now 
on file and he regrets the acrimony between the parties which the Board should not have to deal with. 
He said that the appellants need to decide whether they prefer shoring or underpinning. He 
recommended the appeals be continued to allow for negotiations or that the permits be upheld contingent 
on proper shoring or underpinning plans being approved by DBI, and that disapproval would be an abuse 
of the Board's discretion. 3. Steve Atkinson, attorney for the permit holders, added that the July 13 letter 
said that a commitment letter is due this week. 



(6) APPEAL NO. 00-077 

HIROHIDE & JONIE TAKATSUJI, Appellants [326 - 18 th Avenue. 

vs. [Denial on May 9, 2000, of permit to Alter 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (construct two-car parking 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [garage with roof deck at front and 

[rebuild front stairs). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9914207. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to August 23, 2000 prior to hearing. 
SPEAKERS: No 



(7) APPEAL NO. 00-109 

MARK BRADY, Appellant [640 Wisconsin Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Acting Zoning 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Administrator dated July 6, 2000 

[requiring revisions to approved plans 
[regarding front setback requirements. 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/14/1841. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders was 
absent) to CONTINUE this matter to July 26, 2000, with a status report at that time from the ZA as tc 
whether an expedited variance hearing can be held, and whether the variance application fees can be 
waived. 

SPEAKERS : 1 . Isolde Wilson, planner representing the ZA, explained the facts that generated the 
determination and the appeal. She said the Code was clear and that the proposed bay projected into the 
front setback area and could not be approved unless a variance was sought and approved. She 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 19, 2000 



apologized for the multiple errors in reviewing the plans by the Planning staff. 2. Mark Brady, appellant, 
explained how Planning had suggested the bay design and had been on the point of approving the plans 
when they changed their mind and would not return his calls when they disapproved his application. He 
said the Planning Director had told him to go to the Board. He said he has lost two contractors so far. 



/There being no further business, President Chin adjournecj^pe meeting at 7:03 p.m. 




Arnold LY.K. Chin, President 




Zeldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 



\ooU MM 'M3UW9 ul«W 
ua*ua 3 uoi^uuoim *uauiuuaA0 9 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 -Z 



WEDNESDAY, JULY 26. 2000 

5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL. ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

(3) REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 347A Masonic Avenue. Letter from John Mallory, permit holder 
requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-059, heard June 7, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION 
that the subject wall be relocated to the original location as on the subdivision map, and on further 
CONDITION that ail bathrooms, sinks and kitchens built in the storage area be removed. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-074 

EDUARDO TROZ, Appellant [1 363 Palou Avenue. 

vs. [Denial on May 1 , 2000, of permit to Alter 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (two-story horizontal addi- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [tion). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9922806S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-109 

MARK BRADY, Appellant [640 Wisconsin Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Acting Zoning 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Administrator dated July 6, 2000 

[requiring revisions to approved plans 

[regarding front setback requirements. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/14/1841. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED 

[JULY 19, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 99-200 

RALPH MAHER, Appellant [Revocation by the Taxicab Commission 

vs. [on December 9, 1999, of Taxicab 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [Medallion No. 734. 

[RESOLUTION NO. 71-99. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 00-092 

JACK RIPSTEEN & VANESSA MANDEL, Appellants [309 Mississippi Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on June 6, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Josephine Cangelosi, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (add new studio at basement 

[level; remodel existing kitchen; add 

[family room and half-bath at first floor 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. [level; add master bath and extend 

[master bedroom at second level; 
[remodel existing garage and rebuild 
[existing front stairs). 
SAN FRANCISCO [APPLICATION NO. 9907551 S. 



JUL 2 1 

N FRAN 
PUBLIC LIBRARN 



[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 26, 2000 - PAGE 2 



Items (8A) and (8B) shall be heard together 

(8A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-097 



CHERYL D. DuCOTE, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2355 Vallejo Street. 

[Protesting issuance on June 9, 2000, to 
[James and Margaret Moore, permit to 
[Alter a Building (extend garage forward 
[nine feet; third floor addition; extend 
[kitchen ten feet into back yard). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9902775S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-105 



DONALD & JOAN TRAUNER, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2355 Vallejo Street. 

[Protesting issuance on June 28, 2000, 

[to Margaret Moore, permit to Alter a 

[Building (remove chimney flue on south 

[side of building; remove kitchen 

[skylights and juliete balconies at third 

[floor facade; revision to Application No. 

[9902775S to match approved set of 

[plans). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/28/3948. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. V00-041 



ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2090 Jackson Street. 

[Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

[to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 

[garage and one-story building addition 

[in the required yard of a single family 

[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-096 



TREVOR FOOKS, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[1623-16.25 Noe Street. 

[Zoning Administrator's determination 

[dated June 13, 2000 that under the RH- 

[2 zoning of the property, the illegal third 

[basement unit of the two-unit building 

[must be removed, and with certain 

[alterations the space may remain 

[habitable space as part of one of the 

[two lawful units. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, pemnit, detenvination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 



These items are available for review at the Board's office. 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.htmi . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 



A souna enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherir 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possibl 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader durii 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relati 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In ord 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remind' 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MU 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Mart 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessit 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across P« 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the pub 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct ije 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people s|d 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San FranciJi 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance T;tf 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Sh 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-nii 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of Is 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 1 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individi Is 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that tlay 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-1 6. 51 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, ple;se 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics/, 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



s F . PUBLIC LIBRARY-60V.INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTEF 
DEPARTMENT 41 



)0 



MINUTES OF THE 

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 ^ 

l Co WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, 
Allam El Qadah and John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, 
Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive 
Secretary for the Board. 

Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the oublic hearino vour 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Barry Taranto, representing the United Taxicab Workers, urged the Board not to grant 
continuances to appellants in medallion revocation appeals because it allows those in violation of the 
taxicab rules to continue collecting $1,800.00 a month under their medallion leases. He said the Board 
will be getting 50 more revocation cases in the near future. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - 
SPEAKERS : 1. The Executive Secretary announced that the hearing scheduled for August 9 will be 
cancelled for the reason that two Commissioners will be unavailable. President Arnold Chin directed that 
the appeals scheduled for August 9 th be rescheduled to middle and late September. 2. President Chin 
responded to the public comment and said it was his policy to continue matters if there is no objection, 
but that he regretted that all the medallions the Board authorized were not on the street serving residents 
and tourists. 



DOCUMENTS DEP 
A U6 - 2 20G0 

SAN FRANC/SCO 
P ^LIC LIBRARY 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 26. 2000 



(3) REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 347A Masonic Avenue. Letter from John Mallory, permit holder, 
requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-059, heard June 7, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION! 
that the subject wall be relocated to the original location as on the subdivision map, and on further 
CONDITION that all bathrooms, sinks and kitchens built in the storage area be removed. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter tc 
September 6, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-074 

EDUARDO TROZ, Appellant [1363 Palou Avenue. 

vs. [Denial on May 1 , 2000, of permit to Alter 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (two-story horizontal addi- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [tion). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9922806S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to CLOSE THE PUBLIC 
HEARING and to CONTINUE this matter to August 30, 2000, with directions to the appellant to prepan 
REVISED PLANS that incorporate a connection on the 2 nd floor between the front of the house and the 
subject two-story rear addition, with no additional public testimony. - 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, described the convoluted history of the case before the Plannin< 
Commission. 2. Eduardo Troz, translated from the Spanish by Alberto Rios of BACA, said that he want 
to provide more living space in his house for his family and he apologized to the Planning Commissio 
and the ZA, and his staff. 3. Armando Sandoval, architect for the appellant, said that the planning stal 
had approved the plans which to him was a strong point for Troz. He said that one can't tell in advanc 
whether illegal units are going to be created in the future. Here there is no second entrance that couli 
serve illegal units and the rear access is required or a room will be destroyed. No public comment. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-109 

MARK BRADY, Appellant [640 Wisconsin Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Acting Zoning 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Administrator dated July 6, 2000 

[requiring revisions to approved plans 

[regarding front setback requirements. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/14/1841. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED 

[JULY 19, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter t 
September 6, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that the proposed variance would be expedited and the fe 
waived as requested by the Board. 2. Mark Brady, appellant, said he would have a variance applicatio 
filed by the end of the week, but that neighbors had told them he could not possibly get a variance. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 26. 2000 



(6) APPEAL NO. 99-200 

RALPH MAHER, Appellant [Revocation by the Taxicab Commission 

vs. [on December 9, 1999, of Taxicab 

TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent [Medallion No. 734. 

[RESOLUTION NO. 71-99. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Taxi 
Commission's revocation on CONDITION that the subject medallion be suspended for 6 months. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Tom Owen, Deputy City Attorney representing the Taxi Commission, said that the 
appellant was not driving at all and that he operates a restaurant and bar, and that his waybills were 
falsified. He said there was no progressive discipline process yet. 2. Sgt. Vincent Simpson, Taxi Detail, 
SFPD, described the comprehensive audit of drivers in 1997 and said the appellant's waybills were 
incorrect and falsified and that the falsified records were an aggravated circumstance. 3. Bob Moore, 
attorney for appellant, said that the revocation was not consistent with what his client had done and that 
fairness required the Board to impose a lesser penalty than revocation. He said that 112 of the 431 
drivers audited were not driving full time and they were only admonished. His client for the same 
violation was being unfairly treated. Public Comment for the Appellant: 4. Craig O'Connor of National 
Cab Company said the appellant was a very responsible career driver and it would be a shame to lose 
him. It was unfair to penalize him for doing two jobs. 5. Geraldine Armendariz said she is a neighbor of 
Liverpool Lil's, the appellant' s restaurant, which is run by several competent managers. She said the 
appellant is a decorated hero of Vietnam with a strong work ethic who supports charities and works two 
jobs and he was not familiar with the rules and it would be unjust to revoke his medallion. 6. Dan Dillon 
said he was a friend of former Commissioner Victor Makras who had sat through many Board meetings 
and seen many compromises crafted. He said the appellant is currently driving and that revocation is too 
harsh for someone trying to work two jobs. Public Comment for the Taxi Commission: 7. Barry 
Taranto of the UTW said that someone who has held a medallion for many years knows the law and the 
driving requirements and he urged the Board to uphold the Taxi Commission. 



(7) APPEAL NO. 00-092 

JACK RIPSTEEN & VANESSA MANDEL, Appellants [309 Mississippi Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on June 6, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Josephine Cangelosi, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (add new studio at basement 

[level; remodel existing kitchen; add 
[family room and half-bath at first floor 
[level; add master bath and extend 
[master bedroom at second level; 
[remodel existing garage and rebuild 
[existing front stairs). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9907551S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the subject permit, 
with PROP M FINDINGS read into the record by Commissioner Cullum. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Peter Ryan, attorney for appellants, said he submitted his case on the brief and that his 
clients were asking only for a small revision to the plans, that a 3' x 4' portion be deleted along the side 
property line. 2. Larry Badiner, ZA, for the Planning Commission, described the discretionary review 

3 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JULY 26, 2000 



process and said the Commission had voted to not take the case after hearing testimony. 3. Josephine 
Cangelosi, permit holder, said the attorney was asking for something different from what the appellants 
had asked for. She said she had offered to revise plans in exchange for the appellants not filing an 
appeal, but now that they filed, she withdrew her offer, since she has been greatly inconvenienced and 
lost rent. 4. Luis Robles, architect for the permit holder, used an aerial photo to show that his client's 
house is one of only two short buildings on the block. He said the project is in character and that 
shadows came form taller buildings nearby and that this addition will not affect light or air to the 
appellants. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: 5. Redwood LaChapel, said that the purpose of 
the addition is to provide a unit for the permit holder's mother and that the permit holder had spent much 
money and time in this stressful process, with the neighbors trying to trash her dream. 



Items (8A) and (8B) shall be heard together 



(8A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-097 



CHERYL D. DuCOTE, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2355 Vallejo Street. 

[Protesting issuance on June 9, 2000, to 
[James and Margaret Moore, permit to 
[Alter a Building (extend garage forward 
[nine feet; third floor addition; extend 
[kitchen ten feet into back yard). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9902775S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the subject permit. 



(8B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-105 



DONALD & JOAN TRAUNER, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2355 Vallejo Street. 

[Protesting issuance on June 28, 2000, 

[to Margaret Moore, permit to Alter a 

[Building (remove chimney flue on south 

[side of building; remove kitchen 

[skylights and Juliette balconies at third 

[floor facade; revision to Application No. 

[9902775S to match approved set of 

[plans). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/28/3948. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellants at the hearing. 



SPEAKERS: 



d 



1. Ron Kulton, speaking for appellant Cheryl DuCote, said that clearer plans were neede 
since the balconies that were to be eliminated are still shown on the plans he reviewed. He objects to th 
permit holder's attitude and unwillingness to compromise. 2. Joan Trauner, co-appellant, said she had 
reviewed the plans and that her issue was the drainage since there is an acquifer under these properties 
and severe basement flooding requiring pumping and the project would eliminate a tree on the property 
line that could impact them. Also she was aware they are near a liquification area that could produce 

4 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, JULY 26, 2000 



problems in a seismic event. She asked for a continuance so she could have a professional review the 
hydrologist's plan. 3. Don Trauner, co-appellant, said they want the plans to be complete as to the rear 
deck. He said the tree's roots are deep and will affect drainage problem and he is concerned with 
dynamic change to the acquifer. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said the record is complete and that 
the planner had signed off on the minor changes covered by the 8B permit. 5. Scott Emblidge, attorney 
for the permit holders, said he felt the appeals had gotten out of hand, and that the second permit was to 
cover those items they had agreed to remove, so he did not understand why it had been appealed. 
6. Mark Horton, architect for the permit holders, said the project was now 60% the size of the original 
concept, and was 20% less that the Code allows. 7. Jim Moore, co-permit holder, said the project was 
now 80% less than the original idea and that he was saddened by the opposition to the project that does 
not even require a variance. He said he and his wife were expecting a child and planned on adopting two 
more so they needed to expand the house in a modest way. 8. Joan Trauner withdrew her appeal of the 
alteration permit issued June 28, 2000, since it was her intention to appeal the underlying site permit and 
not the permit to correct the plans. 9. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the subject property is not 
in the liquification area and that seismic safety is always addressed by his department for all plans, but 
that they have no jurisdiction over the underground spring. Drainage must be addressed with run-off to 
the sewer and never onto a neighbor's property. 10. Larry Badiner, ZA, confirmed that the revisions were 
covered by the plans and that there is a 5'4" setback the length of the addition. 



(9) APPEAL NO. V00-041 

ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD. Appellants [2090 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 
[garage and one-story building addition 
[in the required yard of a single family 
[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to August 23, 2000 prior to hearing at the request of the 
parties. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. JULY 26, 2000 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-096 



TREVOR FOOKS, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[1623-1625 Noe Street. 

[Zoning Administrator's determination 

[dated June 13, 2000 that under the RH- 

[2 zoning of the property, the illegal third 

[basement unit of the two-unit building 

[must be removed, and with certain 

[alterations the space may remain 

[habitable space as part of one of the 

[two lawful units. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to 
CALL OF THE CHAIR, with directions to the Chief Building Inspector to report to the Board on the 

life/safety issues of the subject illegal unit within 3 weeks. 

SPEAKER : 1. Trevor Fooks, appellant, said he accepted the Board's intention to continue the appeal 
to the call of the chair, but that there was a lien on his property, and he wants to do work on the other 
part of his house for which he can not get a permit because of the existence of the illegal third unit. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourrj&efjne meeting at 8:27 p.m. 







Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 




Fe^dmafrtxecufrve Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (41 1 
576-0700. 



Government Information Center 
S.F. Public Library 
Main Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 



Ud/co 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE^AN FRANCISCOBOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
AUG 2 3 2000 



(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION : 

ITEM A : 4416-4418 - 19 th Street. Letter from Jude and Eileen Laspa, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/02/07/1258 issued to Thomas E. Flinn and Kristin J. 
Peterson for expansion of existing recreation room and bathroom, closet addition, and new interior and 
exterior stairs on first floor; expand dinette area, demolish and replace existing exterior stairs on second 
and third floors. 

Date issued June 6, 2000 

Last day to file appeal June 21 , 2000 

Request for jurisdiction July 25, 2000 

ITEM B : 2855 Scott Street. Letter from Lee and Renee Novich, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/07/17/5315 issued to Mitch Menaged for recording 
drawing permit to reflect as-built conditions for Applications 2000/02/10/1622 and 2000/04/03/6162; lower 
roof at rear 16' of building; minor non-structural interior alterations. 

Date issued July 17, 2000 

Last day to file appeal August 1 , 2000 

Request for jurisdiction August 2, 2000 

ITEM C : 2836-2838 Washington Street. Letter from Rene E. Peinado, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over determination by Gerald Green, Acting Zoning Administrator requiring revisions to 
Building Permit Application No. 9903501 which eliminates the illegally constructed habitable roof deck 
and associated rail-height walls within the required rear yard and replacement of the "existing parapet 
wall" designation with "remove unwarranted parapet wall at rear, replace with minimal open railing around 
roof decks areas NOT in required rear yard." 

Date issued Juiy 7, 2000 

Last day to file appeal July 24, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction August 7, 2000 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM D : 1432-34 Kearny Street. Letter from Steve Atkinson, attorney for Nathan and Nan Roth, permit 
holders, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 00-046, 00-047. Hearing July 19, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice President Saunders absent) to REVOKE the demolition 
and site permits. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AUGUST 23, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(4) 



APPEAL NO. 00-106 



DONALD & LORI REGALIA, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[108 San Jose Avenue. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 28, 2000 that the 
[project in progress at 108 San Jose 
[Avenue is suspended until revised plans 
[and permit are submitted and approved 
[for the staircase penthouse and the last 
[10 feet of building depth is limited to a 
[height of 30 feet, with Section 311 
[notification requirements to be met for 
[these revisions. 

[APPL. NOS. 9814346S & 9922299S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 00-032 



DAVID BAKER & JANE MARTIN, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[337-339 Shotwell Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning 
[Administrator dated February 16, 2000 
[that denies request to designate 
[combined office and storage Limited 
[Commercial Use space as one 
[commercial space; denies request that 
[the apartment area be 375 s.f.; denies 
[request that the stables/carriage house 
[footprint be reduced to its original 
[dimensions of approximately 20 x 25 
[feet; and denies request that the 
[stable/carriage house be used as a 
[workshop. 

[PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AFTER 
[TESTIMONY APRIL 12, 2000. 
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
[TODAY. 



(6) APPEAL NO. 

GREGORY SMIRIN & SARA SMITH, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



00-116 

[787 Castro Street. 

[Revocation on July 7, 2000, of permit to 
[Alter a Building (restore legal 
[occupancy; remove illegal unit, second 
[kitchen and occupancy separation). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/21/7945. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7) APPEAL NO 

JOHN L. COOPER, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



00-094 

[2857 Divisadero Street. 

[Protesting issuance on June 8, 2000, to 

[Allan Kipperman, permit to Alter a 

[Building (replace existing window with 

[like kind and size; change 3'-4" window 

[to 5'-4" at side yard; fill existing window 

[at side yard). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/08/2163. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) APPEAL NO. VOO-041 

ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants [2090 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 
[garage and one-story building addition 
[in the required yard of a single family 
[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AUGUST 23, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-110 



JOSEPH FESTINESE, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[37 Landers Street. 

[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 28, 2000 that the 
[Zoning Administrator does not have the 
[authority to grant a lot size variance to 
[allow four dwelling units on the 3,125 
[s.f. lot because Section 209.1 (i) requires 
[3,200 s.f., one unit for each 800 s.f. of 
[lot area, and the City Attorney has 
[determined that the proposed variance 
[would be tantamount to a rezoning of 
[the lot. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-111 



ORCHARD HOTEL, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[665 Bush Street. 

[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 26, 2000 that 
[modification of the off-street parking 
[requirement for the proposed 10-story 
[hotel will require conditional use 
[authorization to modify Planning Com- 
[mission Motion No. 11619 approved on 
[March 16, 1989 and a variance from the 
[Zoning Administrator to allow off-site 
[parking at 750 Bush Street under a 
[three year lease with the San Francisco 
[Parking dba City Park. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 00-112 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[450 Rhode Island Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 28, 2000 that 
[Macromedia is a business service 
[company with some components that 
[could be considered light manufacturing 
[and is a permitted use in the M-1 (Light 
[Industrial) zoning district under Planning 
[Code Sections 222, 226 and 890.11. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they. 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S F PUBLIC LIBRARY - GOV. INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTEF 
DEPARTMENT 41 






. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING oP ° ' JMENTSDE 

THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 < SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 23, 2000 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, 
Allam El Qadah and John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Rafael Torres-Gil, 
Senior Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (SBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive 
Secretary for the Board. 

Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 

Txao+inri »»»!*h in.o o\v*an+i<-M-i \fl'l«on fro r>/"l- r "~'^ , itnnn Hoc a'raoHv Kaon ro\/io\A/»H in a ni iHlip hoarinn at 

. .•wwMl.jJ ,t..i. Wl ,w v/V^f/UUl,. W.W.I .., ,W v- J_l ,*-~. ,^w,l. , .-—w v_.. ~-.~j _ ■ .^.. ... _ r . .!«.- .^ _! 

which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI, DBI, reported on his site visit to 1623-25 Noe Street (Appeal 00- 
096 at Call of the Chair) and described the violations he observed. 2. President Chin directed him to 
report back in three weeks on the implementation of the safety items required and urged the sleeping 
room be changed to a room with windows. 

(2) COMMISSIONER S COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS : 1. President Chin requested the audience to turn off all pagers and cell phones and said 
he would limit public comment in items 6 and 11. 2. Commissioner Mclnerney asked the City Attorney 
whether the Board had jurisdiction over Appeal 00-116 since it appeared to be an appeal of a 
determination of the Director of Building Inspection and not the Zoning Administrator. 3. Judith Boyajian 
responded that the appeal was of the revocation of a building alteration permit, which is definitely under 
the Board's jurisdiction. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION : 

ITEM A : 4416-4418 - 19 th Street. Letter from Jude and Eileen Laspa, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/02/07/1258 issued to Thomas E. Flinn and Kristin J. 
Peterson for expansion of existing recreation room and bathroom, closet addition, and new interior and 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. AUGUST 23. 2000 

exterior stairs on first floor: expand dinette area, demolish and replace existing exterior stairs on second 
and third floors. 

Date issued June 6, 2000 

Last day to file appeal June 21 , 2000 

Request for jurisdiction July 25, 2000 

ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the requestors prior to hearing. 

ITEM B : 2855 Scott Street. Letter from Lee and Renee Novich, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/07/17/5315 issued to Mitch Menaged for recording 
drawing permit to reflect as-built conditions for Applications 2000/02/10/1622 and 2000/04/03/6162; lower 
roof at rear 16' of building; minor non-structural interior alterations. 

Date issued July 17, 2000 

Last day to file appeal August 1 , 2000 

Request for jurisdiction August 2, 2000 

ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to September 13, 2000 prior to hearing. 

ITEM C : 2836-2838 Washington Street. Letter from Rene E. Peinado, requesting that the Board take 
jurisdiction over determination by Gerald Green, Acting Zoning Administrator requiring revisions to 
Building Permit Application No. 9903501 which eliminates the illegally constructed habitable roof deck 
and associated rail-height walls within the required rear yard and replacement of the "existing parapet 
wall" designation with "remove unwarranted parapet wall at rear, replace with minimal open railing around 
roof decks areas NOT in required rear yard." 

Date issued July 7, 2000 

Last day to file appeal July 24, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction August 7, 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY this request foi 
jurisdiction. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Rene Peinado, requestor, asked the Board to allow him to file late on a determination by 
the ZA and said the issue was clear cut and involved the interpretation of the Planning Commission. He 
said he did not file on time because it was a weird situation and he did not know how to appeal. 2. Larry 
Badiner, ZA, said Planning had spent extensive time on this case and he urged the Board to not allow c 
late filing. He said this was a serial permits case which the Board had earlier required to have a single 
set of plans and permit to cover the whole project. 

REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM D : 1432-34 Kearny Street. Letter from Steve Atkinson, attorney for Nathan and Nan Roth, permi 
holders, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 00-046, 00-047. Hearing July 19, 2000. Upon motion b\ 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice President Saunders absent) to REVOKE the demolitior 
and site permits. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) tc 
DENY this request for rehearing. 






i^-r t mi- iiHin iv; nj-jriiMfi in IHP 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AUGUST 23. 2000 

SPEAKERS : 1. Steve Atkinson, attorney for permit holders, asked the Board to grant a rehearing to 
avoid the manifest injustice of its decision. He said just a single alteration was needed for the shoring or 
underpinning and there was no harm to the appellants. 2. Tracy Kirkham, co-appellant, urged the Board 
to not grant a rehearing since there was no new evidence being offered and whatever the other side was 
offering could have been presented at the first hearing. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-106 

DONALD & LORI REGALIA, Appellants [108 San Jose Avenue. 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent istrator dated June 28, 2000 that the 

[project in progress at 108 San Jose 
[Avenue is suspended until revised plans 
[and permit are submitted and approved 
[for the staircase penthouse and the last 
[10 feet of building depth is limited to a 
[height of 30 feet, with Section 311 
[notification requirements to be met for 
[these revisions. 

[APPL. NOS. 9814346S & 9922299S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the subject 
determination. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, admitted that his department was in error as to the height of the last 
ten feet of the building and he withdrew that portion of the determination. He asked the Board to uphold 
that portion of the determination about the stairwell penthouse which he felt had not been properly 
noticed to the neighbors. 2. Lori Regalia, co-appellant, described the process her family has suffered 
through since their house burned down and they have sought a permit to replace it. She said the delay 
and expense that this determination will cause could be devastating to them. 3. Jim Keith, agent for the 
appellants, commended Planning for withdrawing part of its determination and explained the penthouse 
situation and how it is necessary for fire fighting. He said the notice given was proper and when 
Planning was asked if additional notification was necessary they said it was not. He displayed the final 
approved plans which show the penthouse. 4. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI, DBI, reported on his site visit to 
the building and said that probably only 6 inches of height could be taken off the height, since they have 
minimized it. Public Comment for the ZA: 5. Zelko Simoni, owner of the building across the street, 
said he had received no notices for this project but noticed it when framing going up and it seemed huge 
and the penthouse would be visible from 24 th Street and is obnoxious. Public Comment for the 
Appellants: 6. Kevin Spiers said he thought the previous speaker opposed the project because he 
wanted to buy the land. 7. Lynn Hazen said she is an operator of a small day care facility nearby and 
urged the Board to allow the appellants to complete their building. She felt the new building looks great 
in and out. 8. Raquel Andreatta said she can see the building's back and urged the Board to allow its 
completion. 9. Sarah Merlini said she felt the appellants should be allowed to finish their house. 

10. Marjorie Escobar said the building looks fine and she asked the Board to allow it to be finished. 

11. Robert Lopez said the penthouse is not blocking views and that he felt the building should be 
finished. 12. Kevin Curran, a contractor, said that there is only one cry-baby but the appellants should 
be crying since they jumped through all the hoops and have built to the approved plans, with the City 
admittedly at fault. 13. Bernie Curran said that after the tragedy that one person can get DBI to back 
pedal. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. AUGUST 23. 2000 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-032 
DAVID BAKER & JANE MARTIN, Appellants [337-339 Shotwell Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Administrator dated February 16, 2000 

[that denies request to designate 
[combined office and storage Limited 
[Commercial Use space as one 
[commercial space; denies request that 
[the apartment area be 375sf; denies 
[request that the stables/carriage house 
[footprint be reduced to its original 
[dimensions of approximately 20 x 25 
[feet; and denies request that the 
[stable/carriage house be used as a 
[workshop. 

[PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AFTER 
[TESTIMONY APRIL 12, 2000. 
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
[TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter t( 
October 18, 2000 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that he would grant a variance for this case but there remainet 
a question of where is the original wall for the non-complying commercial space. He said he would issu< 
a new letter to allow modification of the front of the building. 2. Jane Martin, co-appellant, asked wha 
was the difference under the Code of office use and storage use and asked whether they could work oi 
their project. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-116 

GREGORY SMIRIN & SARA SMITH, Appellants [787 Castro Street. 

vs. [Revocation on July 7, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Alter a Building (restore legal 

[occupancy; remove illegal unit, second 

[kitchen and occupancy separation). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/21/7945. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner El Qadah dissented) t 
OVERRULE the revocation and REINSTATE the subject permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI, DBI, said he had spoken to Deputy Directors Jim Hutchinson am 
William Wong and had visited the site. He quoted the Building Code section that allows for revocation c 
a permit if issued in error. He said he saw a pattern of one-family use based on flooring and doorways 
Also, he analyzed the permit history, noting the cancellation of one in 1958 that indicated two-family us 
and the issuance of the same in 1959 indicating one-family use. 2. Andrew Zacks, attorney for th 
appellants, gave an overview of the permit history showing the house was never anything but a lawfi 
one-family house. 3. Jeremy Paul, consultant to the appellants, gave his analysis of the permit histor 
and the use history from the Polk Directories, and the lack of any record of a parking variance that woul 
have been needed since 1955 to legalize a second unit. Public Comment for DBI: 4. Raquel Fo: 
attorney for the upstairs tenants, said an old City map shows two addresses for this property, and that th 
May 31 , 2000 3-R report says the lawful use is two-family. 5. Jeffrey Adams, one of the upstairs tenant: 
said the Board should use the old records and that the identical building next door is clearly two-famih 

4 



uuii»-ii him iii->tti 1%; r (JLjr^ritari in TflP 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AUGUST 23, 2000 

He said the Senior Inspector failed to mention the glazed door between the units is sealed. 6. Jacqueline 
Cummings, also an upstairs tenant, said they lived in the upper unit of a two-unit building and that she 
was concerned the permit was based on a misrepresentation and some confusion. Public Comment for 
the Appellants: 7. Nancy Tucker, who lived in the lower unit read a letter to the Board supporting the 
one legal unit position and noted that the lack of insulation between the floors suggested it was always 
just a legal one-family. 8. Lynne Menefee asked the Board to overrule the revocation. 9. Use Cordoni 
said she had legalized a unit in 1978 and that she needed materials from the City but that she knows as 
a realtor that you can't rely on the Assessor's records as to legal use, since they are often wrong. 
10. Karen Crommie said the house is one-family and that its twin next door needed a specific permit in 
1919 to add a second unit. This case is a bad precedent because a third party has had the building 
reclassified. 11. Ken Gardner, a real estate broker, described the significance of the 3-R report in 
transactions and that here the 3-R said lawful use was a one-family house and the buyers relied on it. 
He said that third parties should not subvert the system. 12. Ira Victor-Spivack said he heard about this 
case on the radio and by e-mail. He said the appellants are trying to bring the building back to original 
condition and that people depend on rules and laws and that this revocation was bad for the 
neighborhood and he urged the Board to allow them to do the work. 13. Kira Eldemir said she has just 
changed the number of units in her building and she hoped no one would change her classification back. 
14. Marilyn Cosentino, the retired head of the Assessment Appeals Board, read a letter from the prior 
owners to the Board which said when they purchased the legal use was unknown but it was never a legal 
two-family and they wanted the Board to correct the injustice done by Building Inspection. 15. Ed 
Morgan said he was concerned with the accuracy of the 3-R report since the owners proceeded in good 
faith and relied on the 3-R report which they are now told is not accurate. Without notification to the 
owner the legal use was changed. He wants to know as a taxpayer how the City will handle the liability. 
16. Tom Ramm said this was a case of reclassification to two-family use without knowledge of the owners 
and without meeting Code requirements. His members will now ask him how to legalize units. Should he 
refer them to the Tenderloin Housing Clinic? 17. Duane Danielsen said the owners went by the book and 
used experts to research the permit history and are now being punished. They may be exposed to 
criminal charges under the Rent Ordinance. The THC used their influence to have the permit revoked. 
18. Pat Carter with the Small Property Owners supported all the previous speakers and asked the Board 
to correct this wrong. 19. Sara Smith, co-appellant, thanked the Board for its patience and all those who 
came to support her. They are first time homebuyers who kept the tenants informed all through the 
process and they are shocked and surprised by what happened. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 00-094 

JOHN L. COOPER, Appellant [2857 Divisadero Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on June 8, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Allan Kipperman, permit to Alter a 

[Building (replace existing window with 
[like kind and size; change 3'-4" window 
[to 5'-4" at side yard; fill existing window 
[at side yard). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/08/2163. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AUGUST 23. 2000 

(8) APPEAL NO. VOO-041 

ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants [2090 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 
[garage and one-story building addition 
[in the required yard of a single family 
[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to September 13, 2000 prior to hearing. 

(9) APPEAL NO. 00-110 

JOSEPH FESTINESE. Appellant [37 Landers Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated June 28, 2000 that the 

[Zoning Administrator does not have the 
[authority to grant a lot size variance to 
[allow four dwelling units on the 3,125 
[s.f. lot because Section 209. 1(i) requires 
[3,200 s.f., one unit for each 800 s.f. of 
[lot area, and the City Attorney has 
[determined that the proposed variance 
[would be tantamount to a rezoning of 
[the lot. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject determination. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained that variances can't be granted that are tantamount to 
rezoning and no variance can be granted to make 3,125sf the same as 3,200sf needed for a four-unit 
building in the RM-1 district. One can't get higher density this way. 2. Jerry Klein, consultant for the 
appellant, said that he was trying to find a way to add more housing units in the City and this would be a 
way to do that. His client wants to legalize a fourth unit since there is adequate parking and the correct 
zoning, just short 75 square feet of the 3,200sf needed. 3. Joseph Festinese, the appellant, said he 
wanted to create a unit out of the 1600sf unit upstairs because he needs the money. No public 
comment. 



ii ii i im i vui ip 



ii ir- hh-m ti iv; iMUffiHii in IMP 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. AUGUST 23, 2000 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-111 



ORCHARD HOTEL, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[665 Bush Street. 

[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 26, 2000 that 
[modification of the off-street parking 
[requirement for the proposed 10-story 
[hotel will require conditional use 
[authorization to modify Planning Com- 
[mission Motion No. 11619 approved on 
[March 16, 1989 and a variance from the 
[Zoning Administrator to allow off-site 
[parking at 750 Bush Street under a 
[three year lease with the San Francisco 
[Parking dba City Park. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject 
determination. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the history of the conditional use authorizing a hotel in 
1989. At the time the Code did not require parking in the district but the applicant included it in the plan 
and it was his contention that to modify that CU decision the appellant must file a new CU application and 
ask the Planning Commission to modify the 1989 decision. 2. Michael Thomas, architect for the Orchard 
Hotel, explained why the owners no longer wanted parking in the building. 3. Ahmad Larizadeh, a Code 
consultant to the hotel owners, explained the time constraints on the owners and he showed photos of 
Anson Alley with various vehicles blocking it from different angles. No public comment. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 00-112 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[450 Rhode Island Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 28, 2000 that 
[Macromedia is a business service 
[company with some components that 
[could be considered light manufacturing 
[and is a permitted use in the M-1 (Light 
[Industrial) zoning district under Planning 
[Code Sections 222, 226 and 890.1 1 . 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnemey 
abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnemey. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, 
the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnemey was recused) to UPHOLD the subject determination. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, addressed the issues in the appellant's brief. He said the use was a 
business service and not office. The ballot measures will clarify it, but until then he will make 
determinations. This project not yet approved but will go to the Planning Commission. He said Section 
320 does not apply and does not speak of computer technology. 2. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, 
continues to claim that this matter should not be heard until the environmental impact report is final. She 
said she had gotten no documents to support this determination from Planning after several requests; 
and that this was a bizarre interpretation which says a corporate headquarters is a factory. She said this 
was actually back office space discussed in the 1980's. She said under the Building Code it will be an 
office. 3. Andrew Junius, attorney for determination holder, said he made the request for the 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AUGUST 23, 2000 

determination because the Code is not clear. Multi-media is an emerging industry, and appellant is 
asking Board to substitute her interpretation for Mr. Badiner's. Public Comment for the Appellant: 
4. John deCastro said he has worked for high tech firms and that they are cubicle farms, just like offices. 
He said this was a fantasy to aviod Prop M. 5. Gina Lee said she lives in Potrero Hill and she is a senior 
software start up person. She said this firm will not produce hardware, just works through the internet. 
She said that most employees will drive to work. 6. Audrey Cole said she has been in software 
development since 1985. working for large and small companies, and she uses Macromedia's products. 
She said to her this is just another office. 7. M. Joseph Schaller, a resident of Potrero Hill and a software 
consultant for many years, said that he has worked with 80% to 90% of computer companies and that it is 
a question of the density of the people. Industrial use, fewer people, lower parking requirements; office 
use, more people and cars, greater parking requirements. 8. Andrew Wood said that Prop K in 
November by Mayor Brown would define Macromedia as office space. 9. Scott Lee, a resident of Potrero 
Hill, said that while internet and the web are new concepts, that density and parking are not, and that 
hiding behind the web for more density and parking is wrong. Macromedia is just like all offices and 
probably more dense than lawyers' offices. 10. Joe Boss, a Potrero Hill resident, works for a real estate 
trust and had experience with a Hewlett Packard building easily converted to accounts' offices. He said 
both ballot measures would call this use office. Public Comment for the ZA: 11. Loren Hillberg, 
general counsel for Macromedia, described the new industry with a new environment for products and 
services. 12. Mark Brotherton said he is an instructor in e-commerce at San Francisco State University 
and that the mode of production here is close to industrial production and not like office use. This is not 
traditional office space. 13. Tony Wessling said the digital industry is a new animal providing careers and 
jobs. Prop M addressed old City and this new industry is bringing back the old spirit. They are making 
new tools needed for making business. 14. Ron Kaufman is the developer of 450 Rhode Island and said 
he has always done office projects, but here, for two years, they have been debriefing Macromedia for 
their special needs and are planning facility to be brought to the Planning Commission. He said the 
project will have 545 parking spaces and a transit system, and that the density, will be much less than 
office density. 15. Alastair Mactaggart said he is a resident who lives two blocks away and he welcomed 
this new factory of today which produces intellectual products. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned^tle meeting at 10:31 p.m. 



£ 




Arnold ¥iK. Chin, President 




cutive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 



*>|SMopzp.iM9 >Uiai :um 
•iaiuaa uo.L^uuoiui luauuuaAog 



3o/oo 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 V 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2000 

^ 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . DOCUMENTS DEPT 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : AUG 2 8 2000 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
ITEM A : Letter from Cheryl Miller, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit 
Application No. 2000/07/17/5319 issued to Stephen Savin for removal of kitchen fixtures and occupancy 
separation, restoring the building to single-family occupancy. 

Date issued July 21, 2000 

Last day to appeal August 7, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction August 14, 2000 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM B : Revocation of Taxicab Medallion No. 942. Letter from Cindy Lee, attorney for Matthew Wong, 
appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-036, heard July 12, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner 
El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the revocation. Four votes being necessary to overturn any 
departmental action, the Taxicab Commission's decision to revoke the appellant's medallion was 
UPHELD. 

ITEM C : 347A Masonic Avenue. Letter from John Mallory, permit holder requesting rehearing of Appeal 
No. 00-059, heard June 7, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 4-0-1 
(Commissioner Cullum absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the subject wall be relocated to 
the original location as on the subdivision map, and on further CONDITION that all bathrooms, sinks and 
kitchens built in the storage area be removed. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-074 

EDUARDO TROZ, Appellant [1 363 Palou Avenue. 

vs. [Denial on May 1 , 2000, of permit to Alter 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (two-story horizontal addi- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [tion). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9922806S. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 26, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-175 

RONALD LIPPERT & PAMELA BROWN, Appellants [2421 Balboa Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 26, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [1999, to Margot F. Nassau, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Alter a Building (remove kitchen and 

[bath at lower level; relocate laundry tub, 

[washer and dryer to original location). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9919672. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JANUARY 12, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AUGUST 30, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-113 



MICHAEL T. EGE, PAMELA I. UBERTI & ADAM 
SUMINSKI. Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2215 Powell Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000, that the extension 
[of the Conditional Use Authorization 
[dated November 27, 1996 (Case No. 
[91.373C) for a full service restaurant 
[and bar has not been abandoned and is 
[still valid provided all renovations are 
[complete and a final Certificate of 
[Occupancy is obtained and the 
[establishment reopened within six 
[months of the ABC's ruling, otherwise a 
[new CU application must be submitted. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-114 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000 that a second 
[kitchen can be installed in the one- 
[family house only as part of a second 
[unit and, with the current parking 
[configuration in the garage, only if an 
[off-street parking variance is sought and 
[granted by the Zoning Administrator. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-124 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated July 19, 2000 that the proposed 
[greenhouse on the existing rear deck 
[cannot be approved without additional 
[accurate drawings and a site plan, 
[notification under Planning Code 
[Section 311, submittal of a copy of the 
[approved permit application and 
[drawings for the existing lower deck, 
[and the five foot setback on each side 
[of the greenhouse must be open to the 
[sky requiring relocation of the existing 
[stair and landing. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/25/8211. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal bhef. 

2. Penmit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 



A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible j 
services call 923-6142. 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-ma" 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, plea 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , f 
(415)703-0121. 



It 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY - GOV. INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTER 
DEPARTMENT 41 



c/c 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TMB CUMFNTS DEPT. 
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS SEP - 5 2000 

> z 

SAN FRANPI^PO 
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2000 PUBL|C ° ^ 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Commissioner Carole Cullum, and Commissioner Allam El Qadah. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, 
Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive 
Secretary for the Board. 

ABSENT : Vice President Sabrina Saunders and Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the 
meeting. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - 
SPEAKER : President Arnold Chin apologized to the audience for the lack of a four-member quorum and 
explained that one commissioner was attending a memorial service for a close family member, while the 
other was unable to attend due to the pressure of business. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM A : Letter from Cheryl Miller, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit 
Application No. 2000/07/17/5319 issued to Stephen Savin for removal of kitchen fixtures and occupancy 
separation, restoring the building to single-family occupancy. 

Date issued July 21 , 2000 

Last day to appeal August 7, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction August 14, 2000 

ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to September 6, 2000 prior to hearing. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AUGUST 30, 2000 
REQUESTS FOR REHEARING: 






ITEM B : Revocation of Taxicab Medallion No. 942. Letter from Cindy Lee, attorney for Matthew Wong, 
appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-036, heard July 12, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner 
El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the revocation. Four votes being necessary to overturn any 
departmental action, the Taxicab Commission's decision to revoke the appellant's medallion was 
UPHELD. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders & 
Commissioner Mclnemey were absent) to RESCHEDULE this matter to September 27, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : Cindy Lee, attorney for appellant/requestor, and Tom Owen, Deputy City Attorney for the 
Taxi Commission, both agreed to rescheduling the item to September 27, 2000. 

ITEM C : 347A Masonic Avenue. Letter from John Mallory, permit holder requesting rehearing of Appeal 
No. 00-059, heard June 7, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-1 
(Commissioner Cullum absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the subject wall be relocated ■ 
the original location as on the subdivision map, and on further CONDITION that all bathrooms, sinks and 
kitchens built in the storage area be removed. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders anc 
Commissioner Mclnerney were absent) to CONTINUE this matter to October 4, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. John Mallory, permit holder/requestor, asked the Board to continue this item to 
October 4, 2000 so that he can be in attendance. 2. Christopher Visher, representing the appellant 
agreed to October 4, 2000 as the new hearing date. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, offered to review the case foi 
the Board. 



(4) APPEAL NO. 00-074 

EDUARDO TROZ, Appellant [1 363 Palou Avenue. 

vs. [Denial on May 1 , 2000, of permit to Alter 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (two-story horizontal addi- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [tion). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9922806S. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 26, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 









ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders am 
Commissioner Mclnerney were absent) to CONTINUE this matter to September 13, 2000. 

SPEAKER : Eduardo Troz, via translator Cecilia Troz, said that he had submitted plans revised as th 
Board had directed, and agreed to have his appeal rescheduled to September 13, 2000. 



iu i ream ic raor"»nan in mo 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AUGUST 30, 2000 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 99-175 



RONALD LIPPERT & PAMELA BROWN, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2421 Balboa Street. 

[Protesting issuance on October 26, 

[1999, to Margot F. Nassau, permit to 

[Alter a Building (remove kitchen and 

[bath at lower level; relocate laundry tub, 

[washer and dryer to original location). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9919672. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JANUARY 12, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders and 
Commissioner Mclnerney were absent) to GRANT the subject permit. 

SPEAKER : The Executive Secretary reported that the appellants have moved to Mendocino County and 
that he telephoned them and explained how they could withdraw their appeal. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-113 



MICHAEL T. EGE, PAMELA I. UBERTI & ADAM 
SUMINSKI, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2215 Powell Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000, that the extension 
[of the Conditional Use Authorization 
[dated November 27, 1996 (Case No. 
[91.373C) for a full service restaurant 
[and bar has not been abandoned and is 
[still valid provided all renovations are 
[complete and a final Certificate of 
[Occupancy is obtained and the 
[establishment reopened within six 
[months of the ABC's ruling, otherwise a 
[new CU application must be submitted. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders and 
Commissioner Mclnerney were absent) to RESCHEDULE this matter to September 13, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Michael Ege, co-appellant, agreed to the appeal being rescheduled to September 13, 
2000. 2. Robert Barbagelata, one of the subject building's owners, submitted a letter in support of the 
determination, which was accepted by President Chin. 3. Ariel Basse, representing the owner of the 
club, agreed to September 13 as the new hearing date. 



-\ 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. AUGUST 30, 2000 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-114 



RICHARD GARCIA. Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000 that a second 
[kitchen can be installed in the one- 
[family house only as part of a second 
[unit and, with the current parking 
[configuration in the garage, only if an 
[off-street parking variance is sought and 
[granted by the Zoning Administrator. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders and 
Commissioner Mclnerney were absent) to RESCHEDULE this matter to September 13, 2000. 

SPEAKERS: None. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-124 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated July 19, 2000 that the proposed 
[greenhouse on the existing rear deck 
[cannot be approved without additional 
[accurate drawings and a site plan, 
[notification under Planning Code 
[Section 311, submittal of a copy of the 
[approved permit application and 
[drawings for the existing lower deck, 
[and the five foot setback on each side 
[of the greenhouse must be open to the 
[sky requiring relocation of the existing 
[stair and landing. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/25/8211. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders and 
Commissioner Mclnerney were absent) to RESCHEDULE this matter to September 13, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : None. 
There being no further business, President Chin adjourne^rlhe meeting at 5:50 p.m. 

yC^SMopzBLMg /Cjuai :unV 
uoou i|*S 'ipuiua ulbw 

nuao uol^buuo^ui luauiuaaAog Robert H. Felo™< Executive Secretary 




Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 







REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

7 z 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 
^ 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except^genda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

(3) REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 90 Eastwood Drive 
Letter from Cheryl Miller, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 
2000/07/17/5319 issued to Stephen Savin for removal of kitchen fixtures and occupancy separation, 
restoring the building to single-family occupancy. 

Date issued July 21, 2000 

Last day to appeal August 7, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction August 14, 2000 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-109 

MARK BRADY, Appellant [640 Wisconsin Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Acting Zoning 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Administrator dated July 6, 2000 

DOCUMENTS DEP [requiring revisions to approved plans 

[regarding front setback requirements. 
SFP e 2000 [APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/14/1841. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
SAN FRANCISCO [CLOSED JULY 26, 2000. 

pi IRI IP I IBRARY [ p0R FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

^ UD [TODAY. 

(5) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to 
a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal. 

(A) APPEAL NO. 00-138 

DAN D. BETCHART, Appellant [1027 Ingerson Avenue. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on August 29, 2000. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/18/8318. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(B) APPEAL NO. 00-141 

CYNTHIA L. BENNETT, Appeiiant [80 Fiora Street. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on August 30, 2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/1 5/271 7. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-101 

KAY LAMMING, Appellant [268 Chenery Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on June 16, 2000, 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Zahid Sardar, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (interior remodeling; repair 

[existing deck; 361 s.f. third story 

[addition). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9812657. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APP EA LS, SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-119 



COMMITTEE FOR JOBS, ARTS AND HOUSING, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1050 -17 th Street. 

[Protesting issuance on July 10, 2000, 
[to Ciaran Harty, permit to Erect a 
[Building (19 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9711 381 S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) APPEAL NO. 00-120 

KENNETH SCUDDER & KELLIN DEFIEL, Appellants [310 Green Street. 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on July 1 1 , 2000, to 
[Mitch Menaged, permit to Demolish a 
[Building (single family dwelling). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9915173. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-121 



SOPHIA F. ALVAREZ, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2800 San Bruno Avenue. 
[Protesting issuance on July 1 1 , 2000, to 
[Edward and Oi Lan Lim, permit to Alter 
[a Building (legalize seven foot fence). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/07/11/4859. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. V00-048 



ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[50 Magnolia/1755 Chestnut Streets. 
[Denial on March 22, 2000, of Rear Yard 
[Variance to relocate one dwelling unit 
[from the 1755 Chestnut Street building 
[to the existing rear carriage house at 50 
[Magnolia Street by renovating and 
[adding a floor and roof deck to the 
[existing building, setting back the new 
[floor 15 feet from Magnolia Street; the 
[proposal also includes two 2'x7' 
[extensions into the lightwells of the 
[existing 1755 Chestnut Street building; 
[the total number of dwelling units will 
[remain six units. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.164V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 






MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters' will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 



Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 



I 






LOBBYING ACTIVITY 



The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY - GOV. INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTE 
DEPARTMENT 41 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 
, 



. SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP 1 3 2000 



I WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 

00 ~ SAN FRANCISCO 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Allam El Qadah 
who arrived late at 5:50 p.m., and Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Isolde Wilson, 
representing the Planning Department; and Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of 
Building Inspection (CBI, DBI). 

ABSENT : Commissioner Carole Cullum and Executive Secretary Robert Feldman. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS : 1. Commissioner El Qadah apologized to the audience for being a little late. 2. President 
Chin announced the addition of two hearing dates for September 20 and October 25. 



(3) REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 90 Eastwood Drive. 
Letter from Cheryl Miller, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 
2000/07/17/5319 issued to Stephen Savin for removal of kitchen fixtures and occupancy separation, 
restoring the building to single-family occupancy. 

Date issued July 21 , 2000 

Last day to appeal August 7, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction August 14, 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, tne Board voted 3-0-2 (Commissioner El Qadah and 
Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to October 11, 2000. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. SEPTEMBER 6. 2000 



SPEAKERS : None. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-109 

MARK BRADY, Appellant [640 Wisconsin Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Acting Zoning 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Administrator dated July 6, 2000 

[requiring revisions to approved plans 

[regarding front setback requirements. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/14/1841. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 26, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Commissioner El Qadah and 
Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to October 4, 2000. 

SPEAKERS: None. 



a 



(5) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board proceeded to a 
vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provid 
for in the Building Code. 

(A) APPEAL NO. 00-138 

DAN D. BETCHART, Appellant [1027 Ingerson Avenue. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on August 29, 2000. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/18/8318. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum 
absent) to REDUCE the penalty to two times the regular fee of $85.15 for a total penalty of $170.30. 

SPEAKERS : The appellant was present but did not speak. 

(B) APPEAL NO. 00-141 

CYNTHIA L. BENNETT, Appellant [80 Flora Street. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on August 30, 2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/15/2717. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum 
absent) to REDUCE the penalty to two times the regular fee of $297.05 for a total penalty of $594.10. 

SPEAKERS : The appellant was present but did not speak. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 



(6) APPEAL NO. 00-101 

KAY LAMMING. Appellant [268 Chenery Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on June 16, 2000, 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Zahid Sardar, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (interior remodeling; repair 

[existing deck; 361 s.f. third story 
[addition). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9812657. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum 
absent) to GRANT the subject alteration permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Kay Lamming, appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. Zahid Sardar, permit 
holder, asked the Board to uphold the issuance of the alteration permit. 3. Mark Macey, architect for the 
permit holder, also asked the Board to grant the permit. 4. Larry Badiner, ZA, outlined the process that 
led to the approval of this project. Public Comment for the Appellant: Kevin Gardner, from the Glen 
Park Neighborhood Association; Suzanne Sampson; Paul Curtis; Susan Ciochetto; and Janet Elliot. 
Public Comment for the Permit Holder: Jim Zack, from the Glen Park Noe Valley Improvement 
Association; Jonathan Staub; and Eugene Phillips. 



(7) APPEAL NO. 00-119 

COMMITTEE FOR JOBS, ARTS AND HOUSING, [1050 - 17 th Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on July 10, 2000, 
vs. [to Ciaran Harty, permit to Erect a 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (19 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9711381S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum 
absent) to GRANT the subject site permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. Alice Barkley, 
attorney for the permit holder, asked the Board to uphold the site permit. 3. Isolde Wilson, representing 
the Planning Department, outlined the history of the case from Discretionary Review to the present. 
Public Comment for the Appellant: John deCastro and John O'Rourke. Public Comment for the 
Permit Holder: Joe Cassidy. 



(8) APPEAL NO. 00-120 

KENNETH SCUDDER & KELLIN DEFIEL, Appellants [310 Green Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 11, 2000, to 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Mitch Menaged, permit to Demolish a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (single family dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9915173. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 3-0-2 (President Chin abstained 
and Commissioner Cullum absent) to RECUSE President Chin. After testimony, upon motion by 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 6. 2000 

Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 3-0-2 (President Chin recused and Commissioner Cullum 
absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to September 20, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Kenneth Scudder, co-appellant, agreed to rescheduling the appeal. 2. Jeremy Paul, 
agent for the permit holder, also agreed to the rescheduling. 

(9) APPEAL NO. 00-121 

SOPHIA F. ALVAREZ, Appellant [2800 San Bruno Avenue. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 11, 2000, to 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Edward and Oi Lan Lim, permit to Alter 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [a Building (legalize seven foot fence). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/07/11/4859. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum 
absent) to GRANT the subject permit with the following CONDITIONS: that lattice surround the entire 
fence; that the lattice be painted a white color, preferably with anti-graffiti paint; and that a suitable vine 
be planted along the subject fence. 






SPEAKERS : 1. Sophia Alvarez, appellant, stated the reasons why she filed the appeal and the 
conditions she would like imposed on the subject permit. 2. Edward Lim, permit holder, asked the Board 
to uphold the fence permit and stated the reasons why he erected the fence. 3. Isolde Wilson, 
representing the Planning Department, said that the conditions proposed by the appellant did not violate 
any Planning guidelines. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: Peter Joseph. 






(10) APPEAL NO. V00-048 

ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants [50 Magnolia/1755 Chestnut Streets. 

vs. ^ [Denial on March 22, 2000, of Rear Yard 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Variance to relocate one dwelling unit 

[from the 1755 Chestnut Street building 
[to the existing rear carriage house at 50 
[Magnolia Street by renovating and 
[adding a floor and roof deck to the 
[existing building, setting back the new 
[floor 15 feet from Magnolia Street; the 
[proposal also includes two 2'x7' 
[extensions into the light wells of the 
[existing 1755 Chestnut Street building; 
[the total number of dwelling units will 
[remain six units. 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.164V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to the indefinite calendar or CALL OF THE CHAIR prior tc 
hearing. 

SPEAKERS : None. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. 



</ 





Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 



M&fiS^- 



Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 576- 
0700. 



1 



Government Information Center 
S.F. Public Library 
Main Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 



•x 



3/00 



WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 



(3) 



APPEAL NO. 00-123 



ELIZABETH MITSKEVICH, Appellant 

vs. 
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent 



[600 Townsend Street. 

[Denial on July 17, 2000, of Pushcart 

[Peddler permit. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(4) 



APPEAL NO. 00-074 



EDUARDO TROZ, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[1363 Palou Avenue. 
[Denial on May 1 , 2000, of permit to Alter 
[a Building (two-story horizontal addi- 
tion). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9922806S. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED JULY 26, 2000. 
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
[TODAY. 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 00-098 



ANNETTE SCHUBERT, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[17A Stoneman Street. 
[Protesting issuance on June 12, 2000, 
[to Kendall Goh, permit to Alter a 
[Building (remove existing deck surface 
[and replace with new tiled deck and 
[railing; remove window and install 
[French door unit; install new window on 
[front wall of second floor). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/12/2441. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-099 



PAUL WEBER & EVELYN MACIAS, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 



SEP -.8 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



[4390 - 26 th Street. 

[Protesting issuance on June 13, 2000, 

[to Sun-Choy Wong, permit to Alter a 

[Building (one-story vertical addition and 

[minor alterations in existing building per 

[plans). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/23/2537. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-102 



PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF DIVISADERO ST., 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[537 Divisadero Street. 
[Protesting issuance on June 21, 2000, 
[to Howard A. Cooper, permit to Alter a 
[Building (install new awning). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/21/3277. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-103 



TERRANCE ALLAN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[561 Baker Street. 

[Protesting issuance on May 11, 2000, 
[and suspension June 30, to Robert 
[Sigmund, permit to Alter a Building 
[(remove top floor of occupancy to 
[include bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms; 
[remove private computer room in 
[basement; provide one hour fire-rated 
[door to boiler room; remove obstruction 
[from back rear stair). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/11/6894. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. V00-041 



ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2090 Jackson Street. 

[Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

[to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 

[garage and one-story building addition 

[in the required yard of a single family 

[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-113 



MICHAEL T. EGE, PAMELA I. UBERTI & ADAM 
SUMINSKI, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2215 Powell Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000, that the extension 
[of the Conditional Use Authorization 
[dated November 27, 1996 (Case No. 
[91.373C) for a full service restaurant 
[and bar has not been abandoned and is 
[still valid provided all renovations are 
[complete and a final Certificate of 
[Occupancy is obtained and the 
[establishment reopened within six 
[months of the ABC's ruling, otherwise a 
[new CU application must be submitted. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 00-114 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000 that a second 
[kitchen can be installed in the one- 
[family house only as part of a second 
[unit and, with the current parking 
[configuration in the garage, only if an 
[off-street parking variance is sought and 
[granted by the Zoning Administrator. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will 'be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 






There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 



KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct th 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people an 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 






For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Tasl 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Sai 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mai 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of tht 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 



LOBBYING ACTIVITY 






The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that the 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pleasi 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fa 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S F. PUBLIC LIBRARY-G0V.INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTER 
DEPARTMENT 41 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(12) 



APPEAL NO. 00-124 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated July 19, 2000 that the proposed 
[greenhouse on the existing rear deck 
[cannot be approved without additional 
[accurate drawings and a site plan, 
[notification under Planning Code 
[Section 311, submittal of a copy of the 
[approved permit application and 
[drawings for the existing lower deck, 
[and the five foot setback on each side 
[of the greenhouse must be open to the 
[sky requiring relocation of the existing 
[stair and landing. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/25/8211. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(13) 



APPEAL NO. 00-093 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[250 Brannan Street. 
[Zoning Administrator's determination 
[dated June 7, 2000 that the use classi- 
fication of Doubleclick, Inc., an Internet 
[company specializing in development of 
[software solutions for Internet publishers 
[and advertisers which intends to operate 
[in a Service/Secondary Office (SSO) 
[zoning district, is a Business Service 
[under Planning Code Section 890.11 
[and is exempt from Section 321 
[requirements, and is a permitted use in 
[the SSO district. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 



JSAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS DOCUMENTS DEPT, 

' 5 / 00 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 SEP 2 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John Mclnemey. 
Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney. 

ABSENT : Vice President Sabrina Saunders; Commissioner Carole Cullum; Larry Badiner, Zoning 
Administrator; Laurence Komfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and 
Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Pubiic Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKER : President Arnold Chin apologized to the public for the absence of Vice President Saunders 
and Commissioner Cullum which created a lack of quorum, and thus requiring the rescheduling of all the 
cases on the Board's calendar. 

(3) APPEAL NO. 00-123 

ELIZABETH MITSKEVICH, Appellant [600 Townsend Street. 

vs. [Denial on July 17, 2000, of Pushcart 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Peddler permit. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders 
and Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to October 25, 2000. 

SPEAKERS: None. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-074 

EDUARDO TROZ, Appellant [1363 Palou Avenue. 

vs. [Denial on May 1 , 2000, of permit to Alter 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (two-story horizontal addi- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [tion). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9922806S. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 26, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders \\ 
and Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to September 20, 2000. 

SPEAKERS: None. 



(5) APPEAL NO. 00-098 

ANNETTE SCHUBERT, Appellant [17A Stoneman Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on June 12, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Kendall Goh, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (remove existing deck surface 

[and replace with new tiled deck and 
[railing; remove window and install 
[French door unit; instaii new window on 
[front wall of second floor). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/12/2441. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 



(6) APPEAL NO. 00-099 

PAUL WEBER & EVELYN MACIAS, Appellants ~ [4390 - 26 th Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on June 13, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Sun-Choy Wong, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (one-story vertical addition and 

[minor alterations in existing building per 
[plans). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/23/2537. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner EI Qadah, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunderr 
and Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to September 20, 2000. 

SPEAKERS: None. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 

(7) APPEAL NO. 00-102 

PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF DIVISADERO ST., [537 Divisadero Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on June 21, 2000, 
vs. [to Howard A. Cooper, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (install new awning). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/21/3277. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders and 
Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to September 20, 2000. 

SPEAKERS: None. 



(8) APPEAL NO. 00-103 

TERRANCE ALLAN, Appellant [561 Baker Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 11, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [and suspension June 30, to Robert 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Sigmund, permit to Alter a Building 

[(remove top floor of occupancy to 
[include bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms; 
[remove private computer room in 
[basement; provide one hour fire-rated 
[door to boiler room; remove obstruction 
[from back rear stair). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/11/6894. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders 
and Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to October 4, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Kevin Greenquist, agent for the permit holder, agreed to reschedule the appeal to 
October 4 . 2. Stephen Collier, agent for the appellant, also agreed to the rescheduling. 



(9) APPEAL NO. V00-041 

ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants [2090 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 
[garage and one-story building addition 
[in the required yard of a single family 
[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders and 
Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to October 25, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1 . Daniel Conrad, agent for the appellants, agreed to reschedule the appeal to 

3 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 



October 25 lh . 2. Frank Fung, agent for the variance holder, also agreed to the rescheduling. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-113 



MICHAEL T. EGE, PAMELA I. UBERTI & ADAM 
SUMINSKI, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



(11) 



[2215 Powell Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000, that the extension 
[of the Conditional Use Authorization 
[dated November 27, 1996 (Case No. 
[91.373C) for a full service restaurant 
[and bar has not been abandoned and is 
[still valid provided all renovations are 
[complete and a final Certificate of 
[Occupancy is obtained and the 
[establishment reopened within six 
[months of the ABC's ruling, otherwise a 
[new CU application must be submitted. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunder: 
and Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to September 20, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Michael Ege, co-appellant, agreed to reschedule the appeal to September 20 th . 
2. Ariel Basse, project sponsor, also agreed to the rescheduling. 



APPEAL NO. 00-114 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000 that a second 
[kitchen can be installed in the one- 
[family house only as part of a second 
[unit and, with the current parking 
[configuration in the garage, only if an 
[off-street parking variance is sought and 
[granted by the Zoning Administrator. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders anc 
Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to September 20, 2000. 

SPEAKERS: None. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 



(12) 



APPEAL NO. 00-124 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated July 19, 2000 that the proposed 
[greenhouse on the existing rear deck 
[cannot be approved without additional 
[accurate drawings and a site plan, 
[notification under Planning Code 
[Section 31 1 , submittal of a copy of the 
[approved permit application and 
[drawings for the existing lower deck, 
[and the five foot setback on each side 
[of the greenhouse must be open to the 
[sky requiring relocation of the existing 
[stair and landing. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/25/8211. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders and 
Commissioner Cullum absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to September 20, 2000. 

SPEAKERS: None 



(13) 



APPEAL NO. 00-093 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[250 Brannan Street. 
[Zoning Administrator's determination 
[dated June 7, 2000 that the use classi- 
fication of Doubleclick, Inc., an Internet 
[company specializing in development of 
[software solutions for Internet publishers 
[and advertisers which intends to operate 
[in a Service/Secondary Office (SSO) 
[zoning district, is a Business Service 
[under Planning Code Section 890.11 
[and is exempt from Section 321 
[requirements, and is a permitted use in 
[the SSO district. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This matter was RESCHEDULED to September 20, 2000 prior to hearing. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m. 




^ 




Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 576- 
0700. 

Government Information Center 

S.F. Public Library 

Main Branch, 5th Floor 

Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 



'■1 



>4 



/ T 



DO 



WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. DOCUMENTS DEPT 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . ' ° *™ 

SAN FRANCiSCO 

(3) APPEAL NO. 00-074 PUBL,C LIBRARY 
EDUARDO TROZ, Appellant [1 363 Palou Avenue. 

vs. [Denial on May 1 , 2000, of permit to Alter 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (two-story horizontal addi- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [tion). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9922806S. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 26, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-118 

ELMER OWENS, et al., Appellants [3065 Clay Street. 

vs. [Denial on July 21, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Alter a Building (remove occupancy 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [stipulation on CFC 7804653). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/09/08/9983. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-099 

PAUL WEBER & EVELYN MACIAS, Appellants [4390 - 26™ Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on June 13, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Sun-Choy Wong, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (one-story vertical addition and 

[minor alterations in existing building per 

[plans). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/23/2537. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(S) APPEAL NO. 00-102 

PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF DIVISADERO ST., [537 Divisadero Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on June 21, 2000, 
vs. [to Howard A. Cooper, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (install new awning). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/21/3277. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 00-120 

KENNETH SCUDDER & KELLIN DEFIEL, Appellants [310 Green Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 1 1 , 2000, to 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Mitch Menaged, permit to Demolish a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (single family dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9915173. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-113 



MICHAEL T. EGE. PAMELA I. UBERTI & ADAM 
SUMINSKI, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. Respondent 



[2215 Powell Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000, that the extension 
[of the Conditional Use Authorization 
[dated November 27, 1996 (Case No. 
[91.373C) for a full service restaurant 
[and bar has not been abandoned and is 
[still valid provided all renovations are 
[complete and a final Certificate of 
[Occupancy is obtained and the 
[establishment reopened within six 
[months of the ABC's ruling, otherwise a 
[new CU application must be submitted. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-114 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000 that a second 
[kitchen can be installed in the one- 
[family house only as part of a second 
[unit and, with the current parking 
[configuration in the garage, only if an 
[off-street parking variance is sought and 
[granted by the Zoning Administrator. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-124 



RICHARD GARCIA. Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated July 19, 2000 that the proposed 
[greenhouse on the existing rear deck 
[cannot be approved without additional 
[accurate drawings and a site plan, 
[notification under Planning Code 
[Section 311, submittal of a copy of the 
[approved permit application and 
[drawings for the existing lower deck, 
[and the five foot setback on each side 
[of the greenhouse must be open to the 
[sky requiring relocation of the existing 
[stair and landing. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/25/8211. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 00-093 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[250 Brannan Street. 

[Zoning Administrator's determination 
[dated June 7, 2000 that the use classi- 
[fication of Doubleclick, inc., an Internet 
[company specializing in development of 
[software solutions for Internet publishers 
[and advertisers which intends to operate 
[in a Service/Secondary Office (SSO) 
[zoning district, is a Business Service 
[under Planning Code Section 890.11 
[and is exempt from Section 321 
[requirements, and is a permitted use in 
[the SSO district. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 



Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 









For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Sai 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mai 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of th 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals! 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-1 6.534) f 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fe 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY' AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



,-rr iTRRARY -GOV. INTO 
S .F. PUBLIC LIBWW _ R 

UffKlH & GROVE STS. 
DEPARTMENT 41 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 

j 

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



)o WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 OCT - 2 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET) 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabhna Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John Mclnemey. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Sean McNulty, Chief 
Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building 
Inspector, Department of Building Inspector (SBI, DBI). 

ABSENT : Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKER : Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the determination holder in Appeal 00-093 (Item 11), informed 
the Board that his client may not be present for the hearing if the meeting goes very long because his 
client has to catch a flight later on in the evening. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKERS: None. 



(3) APPEAL NO. 00-074 

EDUARDO TROZ, Appellant [1363 Palou Avenue. 

vs. [Denial on May 1 , 2000, of permit to Alter 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (two-story horizontal addi- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [tion). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9922806S. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 26, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. SEPTEMBER 20. 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Planning 
Department and GRANT the permit per the revised plans on CONDITION that the wall parallel to the | 
stairs in the area marked "Living" on the said revised plans be a pony wall with balusters. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, conveyed the Planning Department's concerns with the revisedl 
plans. 2. Eduardo Troz, appellant, via his translator/architect Armando Sandoval, responded to the 
concerns raised by Mr. Badiner and asked the Board to approve his revised plans with no further' 
modifications. 



(4) 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 00-118 



ELMER OWENS, et al., Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[3065 Clay Street. 

[Denial on July 21, 2000, of permit to 
[Alter a Building (remove occupancy 
[stipulation on CFC 7804653). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/09/08/9983. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Planning 
Department and GRANT the subject permit on CONDITION that a Notice of Special Restrictions be 
recorded for the subject property that limits the occupancy to "moderate income housing" undei 
standards developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, with FINDINGS to be 
adopted at a later date. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, conveyed the reasons for the denial of the permit. 2. Jeremy Paul 
agent for the appellants, urged the Board to grant the subject permit. 



APPEAL NO. 00-099 



PAUL WEBER & EVELYN MACIAS, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[4390 - 26 th Street. 

[Protesting issuance on June 13, 2000, 

[to Sun-Choy Wong, permit to Alter a 

[Building (one-story vertical addition and 

[minor alterations in existing building per 

[plans). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/23/2537. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the subject permi 
on CONDITION that all property line windows be eliminated, and on further CONDITION that th< 
Department of Building Inspection and Planning Department provide notice of future permit application: 
for property line windows to all the neighbors who would normally receive Section 311 notice. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Paul Weber, co-appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. Jeremy Paul, ager 
for the permit holder, urged the Board to grant the subject permit and to leave the property line window 
intact. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, addressed the issues concerning the property line windows and th< 
Section 311 notification. 4. Sean McNulty, CBI, DBI, described what he saw on his site visit am 
addressed the issue of what constitutes a demolition versus an alteration. Public Comment for th< 
Appellants: Ann Storm, Jeff Byrne, Agnes Bonaurt, Jim Garahan, Pamela Dickson, Charles Tayloi 
Ivan Vican, and Philip Gerrie. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: None. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 



(6) APPEAL NO. 00-102 

PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF DIVISADERO ST., [537 Divisadero Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on June 21, 2000, 
vs. [to Howard A. Cooper, permit to Alter a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (install new awning). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/21/3277. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board 4-1 (Commissioner Mclnemey dissented) 
to GRANT the subject permit on CONDITION that the size of the words "Money Mart" and "Western 
Union" stay unchanged, and with the words "Check Cashing" and "Payday Loans" be displayed 
underneath the words "Money Mart" and "Western Union" with no greater than two inch type face. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Patricia Vaughey, agent for the appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal and the 
conditions her group would like on the permit. 2. Thomas Chan, attorney for the permit holder/project 
sponsor, urged the Board to uphold the subject permit. 3, David Edge, representative for the permit 
holder/project sponsor, also urged the Board to uphold the subject permit with no modifications to the 
signage or wording. Public Comment for the Appellant: Michael Smithwick, Valerie Hartwell, and 
Cynthia Marcucci. Public Comment for the Permit Holder/Project Sponsor: None. 



(7) APPEAL NO. 00-120 

KENNETH SCUDDER & KELLIN DEFIEL, Appellants [310 Green Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 11, 2000, to 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Mitch Menaged, permit to Demolish a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (single family dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9915173. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin abstained) 
to RECUSE President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 
4-0-1 (President Chin recused) to GRANT the subject demolition permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Kenneth Scudder, co-appellant, described his opposition to the demolition of the 
subject property. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for the permit holder, asked the Board to uphold the demolition 
permit. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, defended Planning's approval of this demolition permit. Public 
Comment for the Appellants: Joe Luttrell, F. Joseph Butler, and Richard Bishop. Public Comment 
for the Permit Holder: None. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-113 



MICHAEL T. EGE, PAMELA I. UBERTI & ADAM 
SUMINSKI, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2215 Powell Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000, that the extension 
[of the Conditional Use Authorization 
[dated November 27, 1996 (Case No. 
[91.373C) for a full service restaurant 
[and bar has not been abandoned and is 
[still valid provided all renovations are 
[complete and a final Certificate of 
[Occupancy is obtained and the 
[establishment reopened within six 
[months of the ABC's ruling, otherwise a 
[new CU application must be submitted. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject determinatior 
with the FINDING that there has been no abandonment of the Conditional Use Authorization. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the reasoning behind his determination. 2. Michael Ege 
co-appellant, explained his opposition to the determination and to the nightclub in general. 3. Adarr 
Suminski, co-appellant, also conveyed his opposition to the determination and the nightclub. 4. Ari 
Basse, agent for the project sponsor, urged the Board to uphold the determination. 5. Rober 
Barbagelata, co-owner of the subject property, also urged the Board to uphold the determination and tc 
also include a finding that there has been no abandonment of the Conditional Use Authorization 
Public Comment for the Appellants: Joe Luttrell. 



Items 9 and 10 were heard together : 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-114 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000 that a second 
[kitchen can be installed in the one- 
[family house only as part of a second 
[unit and, with the current parking 
[configuration in the garage, only if an 
[off-street parking variance is sought and 
[granted by the Zoning Administrator. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-124 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated July 19, 2000 that the proposed 
[greenhouse on the existing rear deck 
[cannot be approved without additional 
[accurate drawings and a site plan, 
[notification under Planning Code 
[Section 311, submittal of a copy of the 
[approved permit application and 
[drawings for the existing lower deck, 
[and the five foot setback on each side 
[of the greenhouse must be open to the 
[sky requiring relocation of the existing 
[stair and landing. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/25/8211. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD both 
determinations. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the reasoning of his determinations. 2. Larry Paul, agent 
for the appellant, urged the Board to overrule both determinations. 
Public Comment: None. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 00-093 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[250 Brannan Street. 
[Zoning Administrator's determination 
[dated June 7, 2000 that the use classi- 
fication of Doubleclick, Inc., an Internet 
[company specializing in development of 
[software solutions for Internet publishers 
[and advertisers which intends to operate 
[in a Service/Secondary Office (SSO) 
[zoning district, is a Business Service 
[under Planning Code Section 890.11 
[and is exempt from Section 321 
[requirements, and is a permitted use in 
[the SSO district. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnemey 
abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnemey. The Board was polled as to whether the 
environmental impact report (EIR) was reviewed and considered. All four members present answered 
"aye." Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah. the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner 
Mclnemey recused) to UPHOLD the subject determination. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the reasoning of his determination. 2. Sue Hestor, 
attorney for the appellant, urged the Board to overrule this determination because her group believes 
that Doubleclick, Inc. is not a business service and is instead office use under the Planning Code. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 20. 2000 



3. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the project sponsor, asked the Board to uphold the ZA's determination 
with no modifications. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:49 p.m. 




Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 




Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 



^SMopzcLMS yCjjai :uuv 
joolj ms 'tpuejg ulbw 

jaiuan uoLieuuoj.uT auauiujiaAog 







REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

_, ^ _ — 

WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 27. 2000 

* Jtf, — : ' 

5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL. ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. r\s^^. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . $£p £ 5 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : Revocation of Taxicab Medallion No. 942. Letter from Cindy Lee, attorney for Matthew Wong, 
appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-036, heard July 12, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner 
El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the revocation. Four votes being necessary to overturn any 
departmental action, the Taxicab Commission's decision to revoke the appellant's medallion was 
UPHELD. 

ITEM B : 1050 - 17 th Street. Letter from Sue C. Hestor, attorney for Committee for Jobs Arts and 
Housing, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-119, heard September 6, 2000. Upon motion 
by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to GRANT the 
subject site permit for 19 live/work units. 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM C : 347 Guttenberg Street. Letter from Dolores Salomon requesting that the Board take jurisdiction 
over Building Permit Application No. 9702930S issued to William DeMartini to erect a two-story single- 
family dwelling. 

Date issued July 18, 2000 

Last day to appeal August 2, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction September 6, 2000 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-127 

FRED ARKEDER, Appellant [Revocation on August 1 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion #712. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 2000-62. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-073 

FRANK DAIJO, Appellant [470 - 25 th Avenue. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on April 22, 1999, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Hugo Villavicencio, permit to Alter a 

[Building (replace kitchen cabinets, sink, 
[countertops, linoleum floor, window; 
[replace bathroom tub, sink, cabinets, 
[tile floor, repaint and repair floors). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9907772. 
[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 - PAGE 2 



Items (6A) and (6B) shall be heard together 



(6A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-125 



ELIZABETH W. MOORE, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[479 Prentiss Street. 

[Protesting issuance on July 19, 2000, to 

[Joseph Tan, permit to Demolish a 

[Building (single-family dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9923023. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






(6B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-126 



ELIZABETH W. MOORE, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[479 Prentiss Street. 

[Protesting issuance on July 19, 2000, to 
[Joseph Tan, permit to Erect a Building 
[(three-story single family dwelling). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9923022S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-090 



HAYES VALLEY PROPERTIES, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[529 Hayes Street. 

[Notice of Violation issued by the Zoning 
[Administrator dated June 6, 2000, 
[requiring that Hayes Valley Properties 
[immediately eliminate the advertising 
[office use on the ground floor, and 
[provide documentation that the violation 
[has been abated within 15 days from 
[the date of the Notice, under Planning 
[Code Sections 790.106 and 790.108. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will' be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible] 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader durinrj 
:he meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relates 
aisaoilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In orde 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminde 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City t[ 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUfM 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessibIL 
services call 923-6142. 

i 
There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Pof 
Street from City Hall. 






Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the publi 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct tl 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people ai 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francis' 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Ta 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-m 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of t 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individu: 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16. 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pies 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 _.«v_G0\l .1U^ 



(415)575-6880 «BtlC ^^ .' CQfl* 






^ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 

xSAN FRANC1SCO80ARD OF APPEALS DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

f °° WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 OCT - 4 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and 
Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Sean McNulty, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building 
Inspection; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; Tom Owen, 
Deputy City Attorney representing the Taxicab Commission; and Sgt. Simpson of the Police 
Department's Taxi Detail, also representing the Taxicab Commission. 

ABSENT : Vice President Saunders; Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; and Robert Feldman, 
Executive Secretary for the Board. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKER : Barry Taranto urged the Board to uphold the medallion revocations issued by the Taxicab 
Commission. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - 
SPEAKERS : 1. President Chin apologized for the absence of Vice President Saunders and asked that 
Board members request transcripts of hearings through him. 2. Commissioner Mclnerney thanked the 
staff for their help during Mr. Feldman's absence. 

(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : Revocation of Taxicab Medallion No. 942. Letter from Cindy Lee, attorney for Matthew Wong, 
appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-036, heard July 12, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner 
El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the revocation. Four votes being necessary to overturn any 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. SEPTEMBER 27. 2000 



departmental action, the Taxicab Commission's decision to revoke the appellant's medallion was 
UPHELD. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders absent) to 
RESCHEDULE the matter to November 15, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Cindy Lee, attorney for appellant, requested a rescheduling to November 15 th so her 
client could take advantage of a full Board. 2. Tom Owen, Deputy City Attorney representing the Taxicab 
Commission, agreed to the rescheduling. 

ITEM B : 1050 - 17 th Street. Letter from Sue C. Hestor, attorney for Committee for Jobs Arts and 
Housing, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-119, heard September 6, 2000. Upon motion 
by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to GRANT the 
subject site permit for 19 live/work units. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders 
absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to October 4, 2000, and for it to be placed on the calendar as 
Item 3A. 

SPEAKERS : 1 . Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, agreed to the rescheduling of the matter. 
2. Sue Hestor, attorney for the appellant, was not present. 



REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM C : 347 Guttenberg Street. Letter from Dolores Salomon requesting that the Board take jurisdiction 
over Building Permit Application No. 9702930S issued to William DeMartini to erect a two-story single- 
family dwelling. 

Date issued July 18, 2000 

Last day to appeal August 2, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction September 6, 2000 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders 
absent) to GRANT jurisdiction thus creating a new 15-day appeal period, and for the substantive appea 
to be scheduled for hearing three weeks from the date of filing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Dolores Salomon, requestor, urged the Board to grant her a new 15-day appeal perioo 
because of defects in the posting of the building permit application. 2. William DeMartini, permit holder 
asked the Board to deny jurisdiction so his project could continue without delay. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-127 

FRED ARKEDER, Appellant [Revocation on August 1 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion #712. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 2000-62. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders 
absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to November 15, 2000. 

2 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Geoffrey Rotwein, attorney for appellant, asked that the matter be rescheduled to 
November 15 th so his client could take advantage of a full Board. 2. Tom Owen, Deputy City Attorney 
representing the Taxicab Commission, agreed to the rescheduling. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-073 

FRANK DAIJO, Appellant [470 - 25 th Avenue. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on April 22, 1999, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Hugo Villavicencio, permit to Alter a 

[Building (replace kitchen cabinets, sink, 
[countertops, linoleum floor, window; 
[replace bathroom tub, sink, cabinets, 
[tile floor, repaint and repair floors). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9907772. 
[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 



Items (6A) and (6B) were heard together 

(6A) APPEAL NO. 00-125 

ELIZABETH W. MOORE, Appellant [479 Prentiss Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 19, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Joseph Tan, permit to Demolish a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (single-family dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9923023. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(6B) APPEAL NO. 00-126 

ELIZABETH W. MOORE, Appellant [479 Prentiss Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 19, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Joseph Tan, permit to Erect a Building 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [(three-story single family dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9923022S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : The matters were WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 



J 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. SEPTEMBER 27. 2000 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-090 



HAYES VALLEY PROPERTIES, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[529 Hayes Street. 

[Notice of Violation issued by the Zoning 
[Administrator dated June 6, 2000, 
[requiring that Hayes Valley Properties 
[immediately eliminate the advertising 
[office use on the ground floor, and 
[provide documentation that the violation 
[has been abated within 15 days from 
[the date of the Notice, under Planning 
[Code Sections 790.106 and 790.108. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders absent) tc 
RESCHEDULE the matter to October 25, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Matthew Kessler, agent for appellant, requested the rescheduling because he wantec 
more time to prepare for the hearing. 2. Larry Badiner, ZA, agreed to the rescheduling. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. 




Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 



e 




j&#~~ 



Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 



^SMopzeLMS /Cjjiai rimy 
joou mg «ipuejg ine^ 

ja^uao uo.Lieuuoj.u i luauiujaAog 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOAREfc^API^ALS 



WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2000 QCT ^ 



5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

(3) REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 1050 - 17 th Street. Letter from Sue C. Hestor, attorney for Committee for 
Jobs Arts and Housing, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-119, heard September 6, 2000. 
Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to 
GRANT the subject site permit for 19 live/work units. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-104 

JUN WAI CHIN, Appellant [Revocation on June 21, 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion #797. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 2000-49. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-139 

STEVEN F. ECKERSLEY, Appellant [Revocation on August 14, 2000, of 

vs. [Driver Public Vehicle for Hire Permit 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [#86365. 

[RESOLUTION NO. 2000-70. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 99-085 

MARK BORSUK, Appellant [1 626 Vallejo Street. 

vs. [Denial on May 24, 1999, of permit to 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Alter a Building (new deck, window and 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [firewall). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9810583. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 14, 1999. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 99-035 

LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant [2234-2236 Francisco Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on November 12, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [1998, to John and Evelyn Schiappaca- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [sse, permit to Alter a Building (remove 

[walls to provide parking spaces and 

[remove daycare facility). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9823286. 

[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARCH 18, 

[1999. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 4, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(8) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to 
a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal. 



(A) 



IB) 



APPEAL NO. 00-140 



PETER LARSEN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[253-263 Laguna Street. 

[Imposition of Penalty on August 29, 

[2000. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/16/2849. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



APPEAL NO. 00-149 



DANNY CHIN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[629-631 44 th Avenue. 

[Imposition of Penalty on August 29, 

[2000. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/19/2995. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-077 



HIROHIDE & JONIE TAKATSUJI, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[326 -18 th Avenue. 

[Denial on May 9, 2000, of permit to Alter 

[a Building (construct two-car parking 

[garage with roof deck at front and 

[rebuild front stairs). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9914207. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (10A) and (10B) shall be heard together 

(10A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-107 



PETER G. EUTENEUER, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[829 De Haro Street. 

[Denial on June 28, 2000, of permit to 

[Demolish a Building (single-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907412. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-108 



PETER G. EUTENEUER, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[829 De Haro Street. 

[Denial on June 28, 2000, of permit to 

[Erect a Building (two-unit four-story 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 990741 3S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 00-103 



TERRANCE ALLAN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[561 Baker Street. 

[Protesting issuance on May 11, 2000, 
[and suspension June 30, to Robert 
[Sigmund, permit to Alter a Building 
[(remove top floor of occupancy to 
[include bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms; 
[remove private computer room in 
[basement; provide one hour fire-rated 
[door to boiler room; remove obstruction 
[from rear stair). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/11/6894. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 4, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(12) APPEAL NO. 00-131 

MARK & LILLIANE BORSUK, Appelant [1624 Vallejo Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 28, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Enzo Spaccia, permit to Alter a Building 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [(alter existing deck per Planning Dept. 

[rear structure setback requirement). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9814775. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13) APPEAL NO. V00-129 

MICHAEL TSANG, Appellant [21 Castenada Avenue. 

vs. [Appeal of Condition #1 of Minimum Lot 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Size Variance granted on August 7, 

[2000 (construct a new single-family 
[dwelling on an approximately 3,400 s.f. 
lot with the condition that the project 
[sponsor provide additional sunlight 
[access to existing windows on the north 
[wall of 25 Castenada Avenue, via a 
[matching light well, additional building 
[set back on the south side, or a step 
[back on the top floor as good neighbor 
[gestures). 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.645V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(14) APPEAL NO. V00-1 30 

GLORIA NAJAR & ARMANDO VASQUEZ, Appellants [1 247 Florida Street. 

vs. [Denial of Front Setback Variance (to 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [allow a new porch and stairs to extend 

[further into the front setback than the 

[existing porch). 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2000.405V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBbKS Uh I Hb bUAKU Uh AHHLALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 



A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or relatei 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In ordi 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are remindei 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City ti 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUN 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Marke 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessibl 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 



KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people an< 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Franciscc 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they. 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.53- 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pleasi 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fa: 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



DEPARTMENT 41 ' CENTER 






MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 

y y ■ 

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALSP QCUMENT$ DEPT 

/ * 

j 0o WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2000 0CT 1 6 2000 

* SAN FRANCISCO 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah who left the meeting early at 9:45 pm, and Commissioner John 
Mclnerney. 

Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department 
of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); Sean McNulty, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building 
Inspection (CBI, DBI); Thomas Owen, Deputy City Attorney representing the Taxicab Commission (DCA); 
and Sgt. Vince Simpson of the Police Department's Taxi Detail, also representing the Taxicab 
Commission. 

ABSENT : Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the 
Board. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKER : Barry Taranto of the United Taxicab Workers urged the Board to uphold the medallion 
revocations issued by the Taxicab Commission. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

SPEAKER : President Chin informed the audience that he would impose a per person limit of two 
minutes for public comment because Commissioner El Qadah had to leave by 9:30 pm. 

(3) REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 1050 - 17 ,h Street. Letter from Sue C. Hestor, attorney for Committee for 
Jobs Arts and Housing, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-119, heard September 6, 2000. 
Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to 
GRANT the subject site permit for 19 live/work units. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the request for 
rehearing. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 4, 2000 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, urged the Board to grant a rehearing based on her 
assertion that Ciaran Harty, permit holder, had illegally rented out some of his other live/work projects as 
100% office space and would do the same with the subject project. 2. John de Castro, agent for the 
appellant, presented pictures and described a visit to one of Mr. Harty's live/work projects to back up Ms. 
Hestor's assertion. 3. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, urged the Board to deny this request 
for rehearing because there was no new evidence that satisfied the rule for granting a rehearing. 4. Joe 
O'Donoghue, agent for the permit holder, also urged the Board to deny this request for rehearing. 
5. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, answered questions from the Board concerning the legal uses of live/work 
projects. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-104 

JUN WAI CHIN, Appellant [Revocation on June 21, 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion #797. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 2000-49. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioner Cullum and 
Commissioner Mclnemey dissented) to overrule the Taxicab Commission and replace the revocation 
with a four-month suspension. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the 
motion FAILED and the subject revocation was UPHELD. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Thomas Owen, DCA, described the appellant's driving record in relation to Prop. K 
and asked the Board to uphold the subject revocation. 2. Wing Lee, agent for appellant, conveyed his 
client's feelings that the Taxicab Commission's action was too harsh. 3. Jun Wai Chin, appellant, 
answered questions from various Commissioners. 



(5) APPEAL NO. 00-139 

STEVEN F. ECKERSLEY, Appellant [Revocation on August 14, 2000, of 

vs. [Driver Public Vehicle for Hire Permit 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [#86365. 

[RESOLUTION NO. 2000-70. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject 
revocation. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Thomas Owen, DCA, described the actions of the appellant that led to the revocation 
of his permit. 2. Officer Teresa Ewins, Police Department, conveyed her opinion that the appellant 
poses a public safety threat to his passengers. The appellant was not present at the hearing. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 4, 2000 



(6) APPEAL NO. 99-085 

MARK BORSUK, Appellant [1626 Vallejo Street. 

vs. [Denial on May 24, 1999, of permit to 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Alter a Building (new deck, window and 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [firewall). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9810583. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 14, 1999. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was continued to the indefinite calendar or CALL OF THE CHAIR at the request 
of President Chin. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, gave an update about the issue concerning the subdivision of 
the subject property. 2. Mark Borsuk, appellant, also spoke about the same issue. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 99-035 

LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant [2234-2236 Francisco Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on November 12, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [1998, to John and Evelyn Schiappaca- 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [sse, permit to Alter a Building (remove 

[walls to provide parking spaces and 

[remove daycare facility). 

[APPLICATION NO 9823286. 

[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARCH 18, 

[1999. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to 
December 13, 2000 with the prior written consent of both parties. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(8) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceeded 
to a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as 
provided for in the Building Code. 

(A) APPEAL NO. 00-140 

PETER LARSEN, Appellant [253-263 Laguna Street. 

vs. [Imposition of Penalty on August 29, 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/16/2849. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to REDUCE the subject 
penalty to two times the regular fee of $1 50.80 for a total of $301 .60. 

SPEAKERS : The appellant was present but did not speak. 

3 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 4, 2000 



(B) APPEAL NO. 00-149 

DANNY CHIN, Appellant [629-631 44 th Avenue. 

vs. [Imposition of Penalty on August 29, 

DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/19/2995. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to REDUCE the subject 
penalty to two times the regular fee of $1 1 8.30 for a total of $236.60. 

SPEAKERS : The appellant was present but did not speak. 



(9) APPEAL NO. 00-077 

HIROHIDE & JONIE TAKATSUJI, Appellants [326 - 18 ,h Avenue. 

vs. [Denial on May 9, 2000, of permit to Alter 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (construct two-car parking 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [garage with roof deck at front and 

[rebuild front stairs). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9914207. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Planning 
Department and GRANT the subject alteration permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the reasons this permit was denied. 2. Jeremy Paul, 
agent for appellants, urged the Board to grant the permit. Public Comment for the Planning 
Department: Anne Forell and Victor Romero. Public Comment for the Appellants: None. 

Items (10A) and (10B) shall be heard together 

(10A) APPEAL NO. 00-107 

PETER G. EUTENEUER, Appellant [829 De Haro Street. 

vs. [Denial on June 28, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Demolish a Building (single-family 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907412. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(10B) APPEAL NO. 00-108 

PETER G. EUTENEUER, Appellant [829 De Haro Street. 

vs. [Denial on June 28, 2000, of permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (two-unit four-story 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 990741 3S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Planning 
Department and GRANT the subject demolition permit. Then, upon motion by Commissioner 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 4, 2000 



Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Planning Department and GRANT the site permit 
on CONDITION that the height be reduced by five feet so as to reflect the revised plans in the 
appellant's brief and with a third floor setback of 15 feet. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the reasons for the denial of both permits. 2. Peter 
Euteneuer, appellant, asked the Board to grant the permits per the revised plans. 3. Greg Delory, 
agent for the appellant, also asked the Board to grant the subject permits. Public Comment for the 
Planning Department: Peter Rudolfi, Gary Klausner, Diana Conner, Julia Bergman, and Steven 
Nichelson. Public Comment for the Appellant: Michael Murphy, Joe O'Donoghue, Bill Sorensen, 
Edith Riney, and Barbara Presta. 



(11) APPEAL NO. 00-103 

TERRANCE ALLAN, Appellant [561 Baker Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 11, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [and suspension June 30, to Robert 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Sigmund, permit to Alter a Building 

[(remove top floor of occupancy to 
[include bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms; 
[remove private computer room in 
[basement; provide one hour fire-rated 
[door to boiler room; remove obstruction 
[from rear stair). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/11/6894. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to CLOSE public testimony, 
to CONTINUE the matter to November 15, 2000 with a report at that time from Chief Building Inspector 
Laurence Kornfield concerning the life/safety issues of the subject unit, and to PARTIALLY GRANT the 
subject permit with respect to the removal of the hot tub, deck and barbecue on the roof. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Steve Collier, agent for appellant, urged the Board to revoke this permit as it would 
constitute the eviction of his client. 2. Terrance Allan, appellant, also urged the Board to revoke this 
permit and described the subject unit in detail. 3. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, spoke about his 
department's contention that the subject unit either be removed or legalized under the current Codes by 
the subject property owner. 4. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, described the zoning rules that apply to this 
subject property. 5. Kevin Greenquist, attorney for the permit holder, urged the Board to uphold the 
permit. Public Comment for the Appellant: Joe O'Donoghue. Public Comment for the Permit 
Holder: None. 

(12) APPEAL NO. 00-131 

MARK & LILLIANE BORSUK, Appellant [1624 Vallejo Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 28, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Enzo Spaccia, permit to Alter a Building 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [(alter existing deck per Planning Dept. 

[rear structure setback requirement). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9814775. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum 
dissented) to GRANT the subject permit with no modifications. 

5 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. OCTOBER 4, 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Mark Borsuk, co-appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal and urged the Board to 
revoke the permit. 2. Keith Ryan, agent for the permit holder, urged the Board to uphold the permit. 
3. Enzo Spaccia, permit holder, also urged the Board to uphold the permit. 4. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, 
defended the issuance of the permit. 5. Lilliane Borsuk, co-appellant, also urged the Board to revoke 
this permit. Public Comment for the Appellants: None. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: 
Robert Kraehe and Jerry Brown. 



(13) APPEAL NO. V00-1 29 

MICHAEL TSANG, Appellant [21 Castenada Avenue. 

vs. [Appeal of Condition #1 of Minimum Lot 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Size Variance granted on August 7, 

[2000 (construct a new single-family 
[dwelling on an approximately 3,400 s.f. 
lot with the condition that the project 
[sponsor provide additional sunlight 
[access to existing windows on the north 
[wall of 25 Castenada Avenue, via a 
[matching light well, additional building 
[set back on the south side, or a step 
[back on the top floor as good neighbor 
[gestures). 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 99.645V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject 
variance with a FINDING that Condition 1(a) of the said variance decision is satisfied by reducing the 
width of the building on the southerly side up to the easterly edge of the light well on 25 Castenada 
Avenue, with white reflective paint to be used on the side of the building facing the said light well on 25 
Castenada Avenue. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the reasons behind Condition 1(a) of his variance 
decision. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for the variance holder, urged the Board to delete Condition 1(a) from 
the said variance decision. 3. Michael Tsang, appellant, described the hardship he would suffer from 
Condition 1(a). Public Comment for the ZA: None. Public Comment for the Appellant: Joe 
O'Donoghue. 

(14) APPEAL NO. V00-1 30 

GLORIA NAJAR & ARMANDO VASQUEZ, Appellants [1247 Florida Street. 

vs. [Denial of Front Setback Variance (to 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [allow a new porch and stairs to extend 

[further into the front setback than the 

[existing porch). 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2000.405V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner El Qadah 
absent) to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator and GRANT the subject front setback variance, with 
FINDINGS to be prepared by the appellant and for adoption at a later date. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 4, 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the reasons for the denial of this front setback 
variance. 2. Armando Vasquez, co-appellant, urged the Board to grant the variance so they could 
modestly expand their home. 3. Gloria Najar, co-appellant, also urged the Board to grant the variance. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m. 




Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 




^2— 



Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 



Government Information Center 
S.F. Public Library 
Main Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 






REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD O F APPEALS 

:o 7 7 



ju 



00 



WEDNESDA v OCTOBER 11, 2000 

^ 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . OCT 1 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 

(3) APPEAL NO. 00-084 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

ROY CURRY, Appellant [Revocation on May 23, 2000, of Taxicab 

vs. [Medallion #856. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 2000-034. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

Items (4A) and (4B) shall be heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 98-035 

VICTOR TWAL dba "BUDDIES", Appellant [498 Sanchez Street. 

vs. [Denial on February 13, 1998, of permit 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (legalize 3' x 4' x 12'6" 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [awning and sign installed without 

[permit). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9723854. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 99-197 

MICHAEL CRAWFORD & TOM HANUS, [498 Sanchez Street. 

dba "CHAT CAFE", Appellant [Denial on December 7, 1999, of permit 

vs. [for 12 chairs on sidewaJk. 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent [FOR HEARING TODAY. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 

Items (5A) and (5B) shall be heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 00-088 

IRON WORKS LOFT VENTURES, INC., Appellant [1201 Harrison Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 23, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Equilon Enterprises, LLC, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Demolish a Building (food mart and 

[gasoline fueling facility). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9923713. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 00-089 

IRON WORKS LOFT VENTURES, INC., Appellant [1201 Harrison Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 23, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Equilon Enterprises, LLC, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (car wash, retail 

[sales/food mart). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9919529. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 11, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-136 



ERIN MURPHY, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[98 Ina Court. 

[Protesting issuance on August 9, 2000, 
[to Stella Chiu, permit to Erect a Building 
[(two-story single-family dwelling). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9902892S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-132 



J. CHRISTIAN GOMEZ & JENNIFER FIORILLO dba 
"POW! A COCKTAIL LOUNGE", Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[101 -6 th Street. 

[Denial by Zoning Administrator on July 

[31, 2000, of Police Permit Inspection 

[Recommendation to allow deejays to 

[play music, a use classified as 

["Nighttime Entertainment" under 

[Planning Code Section 102.17; under 

[Planning Code Section 815.37 such use 

[is not permitted in the RSD zoning 

[district. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (8A) and (8B) shall be heard together 



(8A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-152 



COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS AND HOUSING, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[200 Townsend Street. 
[Protesting issuance on August 28, 2000, 
[to 200 Townsend LLC, permit to Erect a 
[Building (51 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/09/9478S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-155 



COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS AND HOUSING, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[202 Townsend Street. 
[Protesting issuance on August 28, 2000, 
[to 200 Townsend LLC, permit to 
[Demolish a Building (restaurant/bar). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/21/3283. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (9A) and (9B) shall be heard together 



(9A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-150 



MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2407 Harrison Street. 

[Protesting issuance on August 26, 2000, 

[to F. Javier Alvarez, permit to Demolish 

[a Building (manufacturing/office). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9916237. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-151 



MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2407 Harrison Street. 
[Protesting issuance on August 26, 2000, 
[to F. Javier Alvarez, permit to Erect a 
[Building (20 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9916238S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 11, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-134 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[460 Townsend Street. 
[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated August 2, 2000 that Parachute, 
[Inc., a parcel shipping and Internet tech- 
nology company is classified as a 
["business service" use permitted in the 
[SLI zoning district under Planning Code 
[Section 817, and that this proposed use 
[satisfies the parking requirements of the 
[Planning Code. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Pemnit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, pemnit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 



A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine- 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related I 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI| 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible ( 
services call 923-6142. 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct th< 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people ant 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Franciso 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Tas 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Sai 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-m 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of th 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individual 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that the 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative* Code 16.520-16.53' 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, pleas 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fc 
(415)703-0121. 






CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



DEPARTMENT 41 " CENTE R 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 

^SAN FRANCISCCUBOARD OF APPEALS D0CUMEN f S DEPT. 
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2000 



OCT 2 3 2X3 



SAN FRANCISCO 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL. ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John Mclnemey. 

Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department 
of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); Thomas Owen, Deputy City Attorney representing the Taxicab 
Commission (DCA); and Sgt. Vince Simpson of the Police Department's Taxi Detail, also representing 
the Taxicab Commission. 

ABSENT : Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the 
Board. 

(1) P UBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - 
SPEAKERS : None. 

(3) APPEAL NO. 00-084 

ROY CURRY, Appellant [Revocation on May 23, 2000, of Taxicab 

vs. [Medallion #856. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 2000-034. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE the matter to 
November 15, 2000, with final rebuttal statements due by Thursday, October 19 th , by 4 p.m. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. OCTOBER 11. 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. James Margolis, attorney for appellant, requested a rescheduling of the matter from 
the Board. 2. Thomas Owen, DCA, agreed to the rescheduling. 

Items (4A) and (4B) were heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 98-035 

VICTOR TWAL dba "BUDDIES", Appellant [498 Sanchez Street. 

vs. [Denial on February 13, 1998, of permit 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Alter a Building (legalize 3' x 4* x 12'6" 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL [awning and sign installed without 

[permit). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9723854. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 99-197 

MICHAEL CRAWFORD & TOM HANUS, [498 Sanchez Street. 

dba "CHAT CAFE", Appellant [Denial on December 7, 1999, of permit 

vs. [for 12 chairs on sidewalk. 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent [FOR HEARING TODAY. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE both matters to 
January 10, 2001. 



SPEAKERS: None. 



Items (5A) and (5B) shall be heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 00-088 

IRON WORKS LOFT VENTURES, INC., Appellant [1201 Harrison Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 23, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Equilon Enterprises, LLC, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Demolish a Building (food mart and 

[gasoline fueling facility). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9923713. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 00-089 

IRON WORKS LOFT VENTURES, INC., Appellant [1201 Harrison Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 23, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Equilon Enterprises, LLC, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (car wash, retail 

[sales/food mart). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9919529. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney abstained 
to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. Then, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board votec 

2 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 11. 2000 



4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney recused) to RESCHEDULE both matters to November 29, 2000 with 
the agreement of both parties. 



(6) APPEAL NO. 00-136 

ERIN MURPHY, Appellant [98 Ina Court. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on August 9, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Stella Chiu, permit to Erect a Building 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [(two-story single-family dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9902892S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the subject permit 
with the following CONDITIONS: 1) That the findings and conclusions of the soil report be adopted as 
part of the Board's decision; 2) That the project sponsor erect a temporary barricade so as to contain 
the subsurface soils that result from the boring; 3) That the project sponsor pay the cost of sealing the 
appellant's property line windows according to all Building Code standards and requirements; 4) That 
the project sponsor pay the cost of properly ventilating the appellant's bathroom and installing a skylight 
in said bathroom; 5) And that the project sponsor give the appellant a copy of the said soil report. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Erin Murphy, appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. Dan Sullivan agent for 
the permit holder, urged the Board to uphold the permit. 3. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, spoke about 
the contents of the soil report and the plans. Public Comment for the Appellant: Frank Pandolfi, and 
Nick Lobuglio. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: Coriune Barreca. 



(7) APPEAL NO. 00-132 

J. CHRISTIAN GOMEZ & JENNIFER FIORILLO dba [101 - 6 th Street. 

"POW! A COCKTAIL LOUNGE", Appellants [Denial by Zoning Administrator on July 

vs. [31, 2000, of Police Permit Inspection 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Recommendation to allow deejays to 

[play music, a use classified as 
["Nighttime Entertainment" under 
[Planning Code Section 102.17; under 
[Planning Code Section 815.37 such use 
[is not permitted in the RSD zoning 
[district. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the denial with a 
FINDING that the permit request is for a permit to operate the music system as this has been a pre- 
existing non-conforming use, and on CONDITION that the individual operating the music system not be 
advertised as a deejay. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the reasons for the denial. 2. Jennifer Fiorillo, co- 
appellant, urged the Board to overrule the denial. 3. Officer Rose Meyer, Police Department, explained 
the basis of the recommendation by the Police Permit Center. 4. J. Christian Gomez, co-appellant, also 
urged the Board to overrule the denial. Public Comment for the ZA: None. Public Comment for the 
Appellants: Joe O'Donoghue, Peter Glikshtern, Jeremy Wall, Todd Christenson, Jesse Martin, Maer 
Israel, Timothy Taylor, and James Prichason. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. OCTOBER 11, 2000 



Items (8A) and (8B) were heard together 

(8A) APPEAL NO. 00-152 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS AND HOUSING, [200 Townsend Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on August 28, 2000, 
vs. [to 200 Townsend LLC, permit to Erect a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (51 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/09/9478S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8B) APPEAL NO. 00-155 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS AND HOUSING, [202 Townsend Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on August 28, 2000, 
vs. [to 200 Townsend LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Demolish a Building (restaurant/bar). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/21/3283. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 1-4 (President Chin, Vice Preside 
Saunders, Commissioner El Qadah and Commissioner Mclnerney dissented) to grant both permits o 
condition that five of the 51 subject units be set aside for low income/working people, with a report fro 
the Office of the City Attorney on how these five units could be allocated to low income people/working 
people. Four votes being necessary to impose any conditions on a permit, the motion FAILED and the 
subject permits were UPHELD with no conditions. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for the appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. Alice 
Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, urged the Board to grant both permits. 3. Lawrence Badiner, 
ZA, addressed concerns raised by the principals. Public Comment for the Appellant: Alan Teague. 
Public Comment for the Permit Holder: Joe O'Donoghue. 



Items (9A) and (9B) shall be heard together 

(9A) APPEAL NO. 00-150 

MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, [2407 Harrison Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on August 26, 2000, 
vs. [to F. Javier Alvarez, permit to Demolish 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (manufacturing/office). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9916237. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9B) APPEAL NO. 00-151 

MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, [2407 Harrison Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on August 26, 2000, 
vs. [to F. Javier Alvarez, permit to Erect a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (20 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9916238S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney abstained) 
to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. Then, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board 

4 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 1 1 , 2000 



voted 3-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to RESCHEDULE both matters to October 18, 2000, with 
waiver of the right of response by the permit holder, and for the matters to be placed as the first case 
on the said calendar, and with the appellant's final response to be delivered to the permit holder by 
12:00 p.m., October 17, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for the appellant, requested that both matters be rescheduled to 
November 1, 2000 due to what she felt was a lack of notice concerning the acceleration of the hearing 
dates for these matters. 2. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the permit holder, urged the Board to deny Ms. 
Nestor's request and instead hear the matters on October 18 th or October 25 th . Public Comment for 
the Permit Holder: Alice Barkley and Joe O'Donoghue. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-134 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[460 Townsend Street. 
[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated August 2, 2000 that Parachute, 
[Inc., a parcel shipping and Internet tech- 
nology company is classified as a 
["business service" use permitted in the 
[SLI zoning district under Planning Code 
[Section 817, and that this proposed use 
[satisfies the parking requirements of the 
[Planning Code. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney abstained) 
to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. Afterwards, the appellant WITHDREW the appeal after public 
testimony. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the reasoning behind the subject determination. 

2. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the project sponsor, urged the Board to uphold the subject determination. 

3. Sue Hestor, attorney for the appellant, outlined her concerns with the subject determination and then 
withdrew the appeal. 4. Craig Walker, project sponsor, described the operations of Parachute, Inc. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 9:49 p.m. 




Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 



// 




■%&&—< 



Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 






Government Information Center 
S.F. Public Library 
Main Branch, 5th Floor 
Attn: Terry Gwiazdowsky 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

)0 7 ? 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2000 

—^ 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 



(2) 
(3) 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . cr ' 

OCT I 6 2Q0Q 

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : SAN FRANCI^P 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : BL,C L 'BRARY 

ITEM A : 2258 Beach Street. Letter from Mark S. Hennigh, attorney for Richard Garcia, appellant, 
requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 00-114 and 00-124, heard September 20, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD both determinations denying permission to 
construct a second kitchen in a single-family dwelling and approval of a proposed greenhouse on an 
existing rear deck. 

ITEM B : 537 Divisadero Street. Letter from Thomas F. Chan, attorney for Monetary Management of 
California, dba "Payday Loans Money Mart Checks Cashed", appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal 
No. 00-102, heard September 20, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 
(Commissioner Mclnerney dissented) to GRANT the subject permit on CONDITION that the size of the 
words "Money Mart" and "Western Union" stay unchanged, and with the words "Check Cashing" and 
"Payday Loans" be displayed underneath the words "Money Mart" and "Western Union" with no greater 
than two inch type face. 

ITEM C : Revocation of driver of public vehicle permit #86365. Letter from Steven F. Eckersley, 
appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal 00-139, heard October 4, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject revocation. 

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM D : 260 Golden Gate Avenue. Letter from Yee Sun Chiang and Chan Chi Chiang requesting that 
the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/07/12/4905 issued to the City and 
County of San Francisco for construction of a family residence (bedrooms, bathrooms, electrical, HVAC, 
plumbing and kitchen). 

Date issued September 18, 2000 

Last day to appeal October 3, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction October 4, 2000 



Items (4A) and (4B) shall be heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 00-150 

MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, [2407 Harrison Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on August 26, 2000, 
vs. [to F. Javier Alvarez, permit to Demolish 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (manufacturing/office). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9916237. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 18, 2000 - PAGE 2 



(4B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-151 



MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2407 Harrison Street. 
[Protesting issuance on August 26, 2000, 
[to F. Javier Alvarez, permit to Erect a 
[Building (20 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9916238S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 00-032 



DAVID BAKER & JANE MARTIN, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[337-339 Shotwell Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning 
[Administrator dated February 16, 2000 
[that denies request to designate 
[combined office and storage Limited 
[Commercial Use space as one 
[commercial space; denies request that 
[the apartment area be 375 s.f.; denies 
[request that the stables/carriage house 
[footprint be reduced to its original 
[dimensions of approximately 20 x 25 
[feet; and denies request that the 
[stable/carriage house be used as a 
[workshop. 

[PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AFTER 
[TESTIMONY APRIL 12, 2000. 
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
[TODAY. 



(6) APPEAL NO. 

BLOCKBUSTER, INC., Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



00-122 

[1552 Polk Street. 

[Denial on July 28, 2000, of permit to 
[Alter a Building (tenant improvement to 
[existing retail space including new 
[partitions, lighting, finishes, casework, 
[HVAC unit and distribution; no fire 
[sprinklers, signage or structural work). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9925357. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



V) 



APPEAL NO. 00-137 



MICHAEL T. WELCH, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2067 - 2069 Green Street. 

[Protesting issuance on August 9, 2000, 

[to Hilda Lai, permit to Alter a Building 

[(remove kitchens at basement level; 

[revert to last legal use as two-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/28/3945. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) APPEAL NO. 00-145 

DAVID FINK, Appellant [415 Bryant Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on August 17, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Angus McCarthy, permit to Erect a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (eight live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/1 7/7472S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 18, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. V00-1 46 



SEVERINA GANILAO, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[185 Sadowa Street. 

[Denial on August 23, 2000, of Rear 

[Yard Variance (add bedrooms to an 

[existing, detached, one-story, legal non- 

[complying structure located behind an 

[existing single-family dwelling in the 

[required rear yard). 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2000.339V. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 



r 



i/ 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 






Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fax 
(415)703-0121. 






CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY - GOV. INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTER 
DEPARTMENT 41 



JV1INUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 



SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John Mclnemey. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence 
Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Thomas Owen, 
Deputy City Attorney representing the Taxicab Commission (DCA). 

ABSENT : Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SPEAKERS : None. 

OCT 2 7 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . PUBLIC LIBRARY 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to add November 8 th as a meeting 
date, and to cancel the November 29 th meeting. 



(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE : 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : 2258 Beach Street. Letter from Mark S. Hennigh, attorney for Richard Garcia, appellant, 
requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 00-114 and 00-124, heard September 20, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD both determinations denying permission to 
construct a second kitchen in a single-family dwelling and approval of a proposed greenhouse on an 
existing rear deck. 



MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 18, 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnemey abstained) 
to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnemey. Then, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 
(Commissioner Mclnemey recused) to GRANT the request for rehearing and to schedule said rehearing 
for November 8, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Adam Siegman, agent for requestor/appellant, requested a rehearing based on his 
assertion that Commissioner Mclnemey should have recused himself at the original hearing. 2. Larry 
Paul, requestor/appellant, also urged the Board to grant a rehearing. 



ITEM B : 537 Divisadero Street. Letter from Thomas F. Chan, attorney for Monetary Management of 
California, dba "Payday Loans Money Mart Checks Cashed", appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal 
No. 00-102, heard September 20, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 
(Commissioner Mclnemey dissented) to GRANT the subject permit on CONDITION that the size of the 
words "Money Mart" and "Western Union" stay unchanged, and with the words "Check Cashing" and 
"Payday Loans" be displayed underneath the words "Money Mart" and "Western Union" with no greater 
than two inch type face. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE the matter to 
December 6, 2000. 

SPEAKER : 1. Thomas Chan, attorney for the requestor/permit holder, agreed to the rescheduling to 
allow Judith Boyajian, DCA, to review the case file. 



ITEM C : Revocation of driver of public vehicle permit #86365. Letter from Steven F. Eckersley, 
appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal 00-139, heard October 4, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject revocation. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the request for 
rehearing, and to schedule said rehearing for November 1, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Steven F. Eckersley, requestor/appellant, urged the Board to grant a rehearing because 
his absence at the original hearing was due to a clerical notification error by the Board staff. 2. Thomas 
Owen, DCA, agreed to the granting of the rehearing. 



REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD : 

ITEM D : 260 Golden Gate Avenue. Letter from Yee Sun Chiang and Chan Chi Chiang requesting that 
the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/07/12/4905 issued to the City and 
County of San Francisco for construction of a family residence (bedrooms, bathrooms, electrical, HVAC, 
plumbing and kitchen). 

Date issued September 18, 2000 

Last day to appeal October 3, 2000 

Request for jurisdiction October 4, 2000 






MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 18, 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin abstained) 
to RECUSE President Chin. Then, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 2-2 (Vice 
President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to grant the request for jurisdiction. Four votes 
being necessary to grant a request for jurisdiction, the motion FAILED and the request was DENIED. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Ford Chiang, agent for the requestors, urged the Board to grant the request for 
jurisdiction based on his assertion that there was a delay of notice by the Department of Building 
Inspection. 2. Michele Byrd, Department of Human Services, asked the Board to deny the request 
because there had been sufficient notice to the requestors. 3, Yomi Agunbiade, Office of the City 
Architect, outlined the timeline for construction of the homeless shelter. 4. George Smith, III, Mayor's 
Office on Homelessness, also urged the Board to deny this request for jurisdiction. 5. Laurence 
Komfield, CBI, DBI, responded to the requestors' concerns about the delay in notification. 



Items (4A) and (4B) were heard together 

(4A) APPEAL NO. 00-150 

MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, [2407 Harrison Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on August 26, 2000, 
vs. [to F. Javier Alvarez, permit to Demolish 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [a Building (manufacturing/office). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9916237. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(4B) APPEAL NO. 00-151 

MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, [2407 Harrison Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on August 26, 2000, 
vs. [to F. Javier Alvarez, permit to Erect a 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Building (20 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9916238S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney abstained) to 
RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. Then, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 
4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney recused) to UPHOLD both permits on CONDITION that a Notice of 
Special Restrictions be recorded that places the future live/work tenants on notice that a recreation 
center is located in the neighborhood, with said section of the NSR concerning the recreation center and 
????? to be in bold face type, and with NEGATIVE DECLARATION FINDINGS that were read into the 
record by President Chin. When polled as to whether each member read and considered the negative 
declaration for the subject project, all present members answered "aye." 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, urged the Board to deny both permits because of the 
massive displacement that these live/work projects cause in the Mission. 2. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for 
the permit holder, asked the Board to uphold the permits and thus allow his client to finish his project. 
3. Sophia Alvarez, agent for the permit holder, also asked the Board to uphold the permits. 4. Lawrence 
Badiner, ZA, defended the issuance of both permits. Public Comment for the Appellant: Joan Holden, 
and Sean Kilcoyne. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: Joe O'Donoghue, Bernardo Valencia, 
and Alice Barkley. 



MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 18, 2000 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 00-032 



DAVID BAKER & JANE MARTIN, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[337-339 Shotwell Street. 
[Determination by the Zoning 
[Administrator dated February 16, 2000 
[that denies request to designate 
[combined office and storage Limited 
[Commercial Use space as one 
[commercial space; denies request that 
[the apartment area be 375 s.f.; denies 
[request that the stables/carriage house 
[footprint be reduced to its original 
[dimensions of approximately 20 x 25 
[feet; and denies request that the 
[stable/carriage house be used as a 
[workshop. 

[PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AFTER 
[TESTIMONY APRIL 12, 2000. 
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
[TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to January 
10,2001. 

SPEAKER : Alice Barkley, attorney for the appellant who protested David Baker and Jane Martin's 
variance decision, requested that this case be coupled with the said variance protest appeal and be 
continued to a later date. She also noted that David Baker and Jane Martin, who did not appear at the 
hearing, had agreed to the coupling and the continuance. 









(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-122 



BLOCKBUSTER, INC., Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[1552 Polk Street. 

[Denial on July 28, 2000, of permit to 
[Alter a Building (tenant improvement to 
[existing retail space including new 
[partitions, lighting, finishes, casework, 
[HVAC unit and distribution; no fire 
[sprinklers, signage or structural work). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9925357. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : The matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant at the hearing. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Alice Barkley, attorney for the appellant, withdrew the appeal because of new 
legislation that took effect requiring Conditional Use Authorization for all new video rental stores. 
2. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, agreed with Ms. Barkley. 3. Richard Burke, DR Requestor, commented on 
the withdrawal and on other issues. 



MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 18, 2000 



(7) APPEAL NO. 00-137 

MICHAEL T. WELCH, Appellant [2067 - 2069 Green Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on August 9, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Hilda Lai, permit to Alter a Building 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [(remove kitchens at basement level; 

[revert to last legal use as two-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/28/3945. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin abstained) 
to RECUSE President Chin. Then, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 
(President Chin recused) to DENY the subject permit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Michael Welch, appellant, urged the Board to deny the permit. 2. Stephen Antonaros, 
agent for the permit holder, asked the Board to uphold the permit. 3. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, 
commented on the issues raised by the principals. 4. Laurence Komfield, CBI, DBI, also commented 
on issues raised by the principals. 



(8) APPEAL NO. 00-145 

DAVID FINK, Appellant [415 Bryant Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on August 17, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Angus McCarthy, permit to Erect a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (eight live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/1 7/7472S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum 
dissented) to UPHOLD the subject site permit with no modifications, and with NEGATIVE 
DECLARATION FINDINGS which were incorporated by reference. When polled as to whether each 
member read and considered the negative declaration for the subject project, all present members 
answered "aye." 

SPEAKERS : 1. Laurel Stanley, attorney for appellant, urged the Board to impose various conditions on 
the subject permit. 2. Lee Moulton, agent for appellant, also urged the Board to impose conditions on the 
subject permit. 3. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, asked that the Board uphold the subject 
permit with no modifications. 4. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, commented on some of the concerns raised by 
both parties. Public Comment for the Appellant: Elizabeth Bevis-Fritsch, Stephen Huey, and Melvin 
Caesar Belli. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: Joe O'Donoghue. 



1 



MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. OCTOBER 18, 2000 



(9) APPEAL NO. V00-146 

SEVERINA GANILAO, Appellant [185 Sadowa Street. 

vs. [Denial on August 23, 2000, of Rear 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Yard Variance (add bedrooms to an 

[existing, detached, one-story, legal non- 
[complying structure located behind an 
[existing single-family dwelling in the 
[required rear yard). 
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2000.339V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Zoning 
Administrator and GRANT the subject rear yard variance with the following CONDITIONS: That 
revised plans be submitted adding a fourth bedroom; No 220 wiring be used in construction; And a 
Notice of Special Restrictions be recorded prohibiting the addition of a second kitchen, with FINDINGS 
to be prepared by the Zoning Administrator for adoption at a later date. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the reasoning behind the denial. 2. Severina 
Ganilao, via translator Maricel Pelagio, asked the Board to grant the variance because she desperately 
needed the additional bedrooms. 3. Caroline Carrera, agent for the appellant, also urged the Board to 
grant the subject variance. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. 







Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 



ii$& y 




Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 



uoou M*9 'IP""* ■» 
a*ni93 uol^uuo^ui via-uaAOE 



>fl 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO JOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2000 ' 

oo ^ ■ 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

(3) APPEAL NO. 00-123 

ELIZABETH MITSKEVICH, Appellant [600 Townsend Street. 

vs. [Denial on July 17, 2000, of Pushcart 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Peddler permit. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 99-112 

WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants [3647-49 - 23rd Street. 

vs. [Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 

[that the laundromat business is limited 
[by Planning Code Sections 182, 710.40 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. [ and 790.102(e) to serve only the 

[immediate neighborhood with all 

[washing and cleaning done on-site and 

OCT 2 3 2000 [with all windows closed, with 

n [compliance within 30 days or abatement 

SAN FRANCIbOU [action t0 be pursue d. 

PUBLIC LIBRARY [FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. V00-041 

ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants [2090 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 
[garage and one-story building addition 
[in the required yard of a single-family 
[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-090 

HAYES VALLEY PROPERTIES, Appellant [529 Hayes Street. 

vs. [Notice of Violation issued by the Zoning 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Administrator dated June 6, 2000, 

[requiring that Hayes Valley Properties 
[immediately eliminate the advertising 
[office use on the ground floor, and 
[provide documentation that the violation 
[has been abated within 15 days from 
[the date of the Notice, under Planning 
[Code Sections 790.106 and 790.108. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 25, 2000 - PAGE 2 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Perniit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 



These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MbMBbKS Uh I Hb bUAKU Uh AMHbALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine' 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during- 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 



There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fax 
(415)703-0121. 



> 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



SF. PUBLIC LIBRARY-GOV.INFOR 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. ■ CENTER 
DEPARTMENT 41 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 

DOCUMENTS DEPT, 
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

OCT 3 1 2000 

WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 25, 2000 oMirntki ^ A 

^ ' SAN FRANCISCO 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL. ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



PRESENT : Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam El 
Qadah, and Commissioner John Mclnemey. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of 
Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); Isolde Wilson representing the Zoning Administrator and the Planning 
Department; and Sgt. William Coggan of the Police Department's Legal Division (PDLD). 

ABSENT : President Arnold Chin; Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator; and Robert Feldman, 
Executive Secretary for the Board. 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKER : Chip Gibbons commented on the Chat Cafe case and urged the Board to enforce the 
current Planning Code and retract the stay of enforcement given to Chat Cafe concerning the illegal 
awning and the illegal placement of tables and chairs on the sidewalk. He also noted that Supervisor 
Leno's office has not proposed any legislation to help Chat Cafe with their permit problems. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - 
SPEAKER : Commissioner Cullum thanked the Board staff for their hard work during this marathon run 
of meetings, and promised to help the Board return to a more normal pace of meetings next year. 



(3) APPEAL NO. 00-123 

ELIZABETH MITSKEVICH, Appellant [600 Townsend Street. 

vs. [Denial on July 17, 2000, of Pushcart 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent [Peddler permit. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. OCTOBER 25. 2000 



ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President 
Chin absent) to OVERRULE the Police Department and GRANT the subject permit on CONDITION 
that the pushcart be placed in front of parking meter no. 668, on CONDITION that the lines be formed 
parallel to the curb, and with a FINDING that distances under the Police Code should be measured 
under the standard used by the Building Code. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sgt. William Coggan, PDLD, explained the denial of the permit and asked the Board to 
clarify how distances should be measured under the Police Code. 2. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, 
explained that distances under the Building Code are measured traveling down the center of the 
sidewalk. 3. Elizabeth Mitskevich, appellant, urged the Board to grant the subject permit. Public 
Comment for the Police Department: David Lawrence of Metro Commerce Bank. Public Comment 
for the Appellant: None. 



(4) APPEAL NO. 99-112 

WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants [3647-49 - 23rd Street. 

vs. [Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 

[that the laundromat business is limited 
[by Planning Code Sections 182, 710.40 
[and 790.102(e) to serve only the 
[immediate neighborhood with all 
[washing and cleaning done on-site and 
[with all windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to 
RESCHEDULE the matter to November 8, 2000, with this to be the absolute last rescheduling. 

SPEAKERS : 1 . Alexander Weyand, attorney for appellant, requested a rescheduling from the Board. 
2. Isolde Wilson, representing the ZA, objected to the rescheduling request. 



(5) APPEAL NO. V00-041 

ROBERT & BEATRICE WOOD, Appellants [2090 Jackson Street. 

vs. [Protesting granting on March 15, 2000, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [to Ma Estates, Rear Yard Variance to 

[construct a four-car, semi-underground 
[garage and one-story building addition 
[in the required yard of a single-family 
[dwelling. 

[VARIANCE CASE NO. 98.908V. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 4-0-1 
(President Chin absent) to UPHOLD the subject variance on CONDITION that the trellis be painted a 
white color. 









MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, OCTOBER 25. 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Daniel Conrad, attorney for the appellants, urged the Board to impose several 
conditions on the subject variance decision. 2. Frank Fung, attorney for the variance holder, asked the 
Board to uphold the variance decision with no modifications. 3. Isolde Wilson, representing the ZA, 
defended the granting of the variance. 4. Laurence Komfield, CBI, DBI, commented on some Building 
Code issues raised by the principals. Public Comment for the Appellants: Carol Kettell. Public 
Comment for the ZA: None. 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-090 



HAYES VALLEY PROPERTIES, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[529 Hayes Street. 

[Notice of Violation issued by the Zoning 
[Administrator dated June 6, 2000, 
[requiring that Hayes Valley Properties 
[immediately eliminate the advertising 
[office use on the ground floor, and 
[provide documentation that the violation 
[has been abated within 15 days from 
[the date of the Notice, under Planning 
[Code Sections 790.106 and 790.108. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Cullum 
dissented and President Chin absent) to CONTINUE the matter to December 6, 2000. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Dave Wasser, attorney for the appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. Isolde 
Wilson, representing the ZA, defended the Notice of Violation and offered some alternatives on how the 
appellant could keep the subject advertising office use on the ground floor. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. 




Arnold Y.K^Chin, President 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 




Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 



joolj qqg 'ipueug ulpw 
aatLuao uoLq.euuoj.ui quouiujaAog 



to REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ^OARDffiffi^JJ=/|^ S 

,/.o WEPNESDAY^NOVEMBER 1,2000 OCT 3 1 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

(3) APPEAL NO. 00-139 

STEVEN F. ECKERSLEY, Appellant [Revocation on August 14, 2000, of 

vs. [Driver Public Vehicle for Hire Permit 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [#86365. 

[RESOLUTION NO. 2000-70. 

[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 

(4) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to 
a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided 
for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board wiii take testimony and then decide the appeal. 

(A) APPEAL NO. 00-162 

ALICIA POQUIZ, Appellant [241 8 Alemany Blvd. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on September 27, 2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/30/9286. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(B) APPEAL NO. 00-195 

FELIXBERTO MALIT, JR., Appellant [403 Amazon Avenue. 

vs. [Imposition of Penalty, on October 20, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/09/1 1/0092. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-156 

MARLA McGOWAN & PHILIP FERNANDEZ, [2646 Hyde Street. 

Appellants [Request on September 8, 2000 by the 

vs. [Zoning Administrator for suspension of 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [permit to Alter a Building (construct 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [dormer to improve headroom in attic) 

[due to lack of Section 31 1 neighborhood 
[notification. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9915310. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-142 

SARAH SWEET, Appellant [1 74 - 1 0th Avenue. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on August 16, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Denise Jasper, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (revert to last legal use; remove 

[illegal kitchen on second floor). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/07/31/6549. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 1, 2000 - PAGE 2 



Items (7A) and (7B) shall be heard together 






APPEAL NO. 00-153 



VIRGINIA MAKI, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2254 Bush Street. 

[Protesting issuance on August 29, 2000, 
[to Denis McMahon and James 
[Nunemacher, permit to Demolish a 
[Building (single-family dwelling). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/24/8826. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(7B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-154 



VIRGINIA MAKI, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2254 Bush Street. 

[Protesting issuance on August 29, 2000, 
[to Denis McMahon and James 
[Nunemacher, permit to Alter a Building 
[(resubmit plans to certify compliance 
[with variance decision; no change in 
[height, building envelope or use). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/07/19/5533. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (8A) and (8B) shall be heard together 



(8A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-157 



DAVID ZOVICKIAN, LAURA BURTCH & BONNIE 
FEINGOLD, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[541 - 29th Street. 

[Protesting issuance on September 5, 

[2000, to Leo Cassidy, permit to 

[Demolish a Building (single-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9913229. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-158 



DAVID ZOVICKIAN, LAURA BURTCH & BONNIE 
FEINGOLD, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[547 - 29th Street. 

[Protesting issuance on September 5, 

[2000, to Leo Cassidy, permit to 

[Demolish a Building (single-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9913230. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-143 



PEG O'MALLEY, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[135 Carl Street. 

[Zoning Administrator's determination 

[dated August 18, 2000 that the proposal 

[to change the basement unit into a 

[common area laundry and private 

[storage facilities for use by all of the 

[building's occupants will constitute a 

[removal of a unit and not a dwelling unit 

[merger. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public correspondence. 



These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Cede Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY-G0V.INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTER 
DEPARTMENT 41 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 

& 

JSAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

t/oo WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2000 NOV - 9 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders who left early at 8:45 p.m., 
Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Sean 
McNulty, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); Thomas Owen, Deputy 
City Attorney representing the Taxicab Commission (DCA); and Sgt. Vince Simpson of the Police 
Department's Taxi Detail, also representing the Taxicab Commission (PDTD). 

ABSENT : Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS: None. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - 
SPEAKER : Commissioner Mclnerney commented on Appeal V00-041, which was heard on October 25, 
2000. 



(3) APPEAL NO. 00-139 

STEVEN F. ECKERSLEY, Appellant [Revocation on August 14, 2000, of 

vs. [Driver Public Vehicle for Hire Permit 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [#86365. 

[RESOLUTION NO. 2000-70. 

[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to 
OVERRULE the Taxicab Commission and replace the subject revocation with a one-year suspension on 
CONDITION that the appellant participate in a program of therapy directed at anger management to be 
20 sessions over 52 weeks, or else the appellant's permit shall be automatically revoked. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 1. 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Thomas Owen, DCA, outlined the reasons for the revocation. 2. Officer Teresa Ewins 
described her encounter with the appellant. 3. Sgt. Vince Simpson, PDTD, described the appellant's taxi 
permit record. 4. Steven Eckersley, appellant, urged the Board to overturn the revocation. No Public 
Comment. 



(4) CONSENT ITEMS : With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board proceeded to a 
vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided 
for in the Building Code. 

(A) APPEAL NO. 00-162 

ALICIA POQUIZ, Appellant [241 8 Alemany Blvd. 

vs. [Appeal for Refund of Penalty imposed 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [on September 27, 2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/30/9286. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to REDUCE the penalty to two 
times the regular fee of $378.30 for a total of $756. 60. 

SPEAKERS : The appellant was present but did not speak. 

(B) APPEAL NO. 00-195 

FELIXBERTO MALIT, JR., Appellant [403 Amazon Avenue. 

vs. [Imposition of Penalty on October 20, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 2000/09/11/0092. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to REDUCE the penalty to two 
times the regular fee of $134. 55 for a total of $269.10. 

SPEAKERS : The appellant was present but did not speak. 



(5) APPEAL NO. 00-156 

MARLA McGOWAN & PHILIP FERNANDEZ, [2646 Hyde Street. 

Appellants [Request on September 8, 2000 by the 

vs. [Zoning Administrator for suspension of 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [permit to Alter a Building (construct 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [dormer to improve headroom in attic) 

[due to lack of Section 311 neighborhood 
[notification. 

[APPLICATION NO. 9915310. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE 
the Zoning Administrator's request for suspension of the subject permit. 

I 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 1. 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1 . Lawrence Badiner, ZA, withdrew his request for suspension of the subject permit. 

2. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellants, outlined the reasons for the appeal. Public Comment for the 

Appellants: None. Public Comment for the ZA: William Ausseresses. 



(6) APPEAL NO. 00-142 

SARAH SWEET, Appellant [1 74 - 1 0th Avenue. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on August 16, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Denise Jasper, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (revert to last legal use; remove 

[illegal kitchen on second floor). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/07/31/6549. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 2-2-1 
(Commissioner Cullum and Commissioner El Qadah dissented, Vice President Saunders absent) to 
UPHOLD the subject alteration permit. Four votes being necessary to overturn or modify any 
departmental action, the subject alteration permit was UPHELD. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sarah Sweet, appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. Denise Jasper, permit 
holder, urged the Board to grant the permit. 3. Sean McNulty, CBI, DBI, commented on issues raised by 
the principals. 



Items (7A) and (7B) were heard together 

(7A) APPEAL NO. 00-153 

VIRGINIA MAKI, Appellant [2254 Bush Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on August 29, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Denis McMahon and James 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Nunemacher, permit to Demolish a 

[Building (single-family dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/24/8826. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(7B) APPEAL NO. 00-154 

VIRGINIA MAKI, Appellant [2254 Bush Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on August 29, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to Denis McMahon and James 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Nunemacher, permit to Alter a Building 

[(resubmit plans to certify compliance 
[with variance decision; no change in 
[height, building envelope or use). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/07/19/5533. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney 
abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the 
Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney recused) to UPHOLD both permits with the following 
CONDITIONS: that the permit holders pay for a structural engineering study of John Rose's foundation 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. NOVEMBER 1. 2000 



(121-123 Wilmot Street) and pay for any damage to said foundation; that the permit holders pay for the 
repair of the deck on Mr. Rose's property; and that the Department of Building Inspection approve the 
plans to repair the damage found on Mr. Rose's property before any construction begins on the subject 
property. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Patricia Vaughey, agent for appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeals. 2. Virginia 
Maki, urged the Board to deny the permits. 3. John Sanger, attorney for the permit holders, asked the 
Board to uphold both permits. 4. Sean McNulty, CBI, DBI, commented on issues raised by the principals. 
Public Comment for the Appellant: Jan Bolaffi, Geoffrey DeSousa, and Pamela Natcher. Public 
comment for the Permit Holders: Kenneth Starosciak, and Sarah Howard. 



Items (8A) and (8B) were heard together 



(8A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-157 



DAVID ZOVICKIAN, LAURA BURTCH & BONNIE 
FEINGOLD, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[541 - 29th Street. 

[Protesting issuance on September 5, 

[2000, to Leo Cassidy, permit to 

[Demolish a Building (single-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9913229. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-158 



DAVID ZOVICKIAN, LAURA BURTCH & BONNIE 
FEINGOLD, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[547- 29th Street. 

[Protesting issuance on September 5, 

[2000, to Leo Cassidy, permit to 

[Demolish a Building (single-family 

[dwelling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9913230. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerm 
abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnemey. After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner 
Qadah, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented, Commissioner Mclnerney recused) to 
UPHOLD both demolition permits. 

SPEAKERS : 1. David Zovickian, co-appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeals. 2. Bonnie 
Feingold, co-appellant, also elaborated on the reasons for the appeals. 3. John Sanger, attorney for 
the permit holder, urged the Board to grant both permits. No Public Comment. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 1. 2000 



(9) APPEAL NO. 00-143 

PEG O'MALLEY, Appellant [1 35 Carl Street. 

vs. [Zoning Administrator's determination 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [dated August 18, 2000 that the proposal 

[to change the basement unit into a 
[common area laundry and private 
[storage facilities for use by all of the 
[building's occupants will constitute a 
[removal of a unit and not a dwelling unit 
[merger. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders absent) to 
CLOSE public testimony, and to CONTINUE the matter to November 8, 2000 with a report at that time 
from the Zoning Administrator and the appellant concerning the abeyance issue with the Department of 
Public Works. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the determination. 2. Peg O'Malley, appellant, gave 
a history of the subject property. 3. Brett Gladstone, attorney for appellant, outlined the reasons for the 
appeal. Public Comment for the Appellant: Jeremy Paul. 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 9:36 p.m. 



/ 





Amold Y.K. Chin, President 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 



j oo [j qq.g 'ipueag ulpw 
j3q.ueo uo.Lq.euuoj.ui quaiuujoAog 






REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 



r 0O 



5:30 P.M., CITY HALL. ROOM 416 



1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. r^^*. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 



NOV - 6 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



(3) REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 415 Bryant Street. Letter from Laurel S. Stanley, attorney for David Fink, 
appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-145, heard October 18, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to UPHOLD the subject 
site permit with no modifications, and with NEGATIVE DECLARATION FINDINGS which were 
incorporated by reference. When polled as to whether each member read and considered the negative 
declaration for the subject project, all present members answered "aye." 



(4) 



APPEAL NO. 00-143 



PEG O'MALLEY, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[135 Carl Street. 

[Zoning Administrator's determination 

[dated August 18, 2000 that the proposal 

[to change the basement unit into a 

[common area laundry and private 

[storage facilities for use by all of the 

[building's occupants will constitute a 

[removal of a unit and not a dwelling unit 

[merger. 

[PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AFTER 

[TESTIMONY NOVEMBER 1, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 



(5) 



APPEAL NO. 00-114 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated June 29, 2000 that a second 
[kitchen can be installed in the one- 
[family house only as part of a second 
[unit and, with the current parking 
[configuration in the garage, only if an 
[off-street parking variance is sought and 
[granted by the Zoning Administrator. 
[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 - PAGE 2 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-124 

RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant [2258 Beach Street. 

vs. [Zoning Administrator determination 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [dated July 19, 2000 that the proposed 

[greenhouse on the existing rear deck 
[cannot be approved without additional 
[accurate drawings and a site plan, 
[notification under Planning Code 
[Section 311, submittal of a copy of the 
[approved permit application and 
[drawings for the existing lower deck, 
[and the five foot setback on each side 
[of the greenhouse must be open to the 
[sky requiring relocation of the existing 
[stair and landing. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/25/8211. 
[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 99-112 

WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants [3647-49 - 23rd Street. 

vs. [Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 

[that the laundromat business is limited 
[by Planning Code Sections 182, 710.40 
[and 790.102(e) to serve only the 
[immediate neighborhood with all 
[washing and cleaning done on-site and 
[with all windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

Items (8A) through (8K) shall be heard together 

(8A) APPEAL NO. 00-170 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [555 - 4th Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (12 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825950S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8B) APPEAL NO. 00-171 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [48 Zoe Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (18 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825944S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8C) APPEAL NO. 00-172 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [25 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825945S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8D) APPEAL NO. 00-173 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [35 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825946S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(8E) APPEAL NO. 00-174 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASOMABLE GROWTH, [55 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (18 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825947S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8F) APPEAL NO. 00-175 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [75 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825948S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8G) APPEAL NO. 00-176 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [545 - 4th Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (12 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825949S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8H) APPEAL NO. 00-177 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [88 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825951 S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(81) APPEAL NO. 00-178 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [48 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (18 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825952S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8J) APPEAL NO. 00-179 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [28 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825953S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8K) APPEAL NO. 00-180 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [18 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (14 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825954S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, determination or resolution. 

4. Public conespondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call: 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant publicl 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be] 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 






ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will 'be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
the meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk 
Street from City Hall. 

Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fax 
(415)703-0121. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



s F . PUBLIC LIBRARY -GOV. IMTOR 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTER 
DEPARTMENT 41 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 
■£ 

.SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 8, 2000 N0V 1 7 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John Mclnerney. 

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence 
Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI). 

ABSENT : Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be affdrded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the pubiic may address the Board for up to three minutes, if it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jane Martin, principal in Appeals 00-032 and V00-168, requested that the Board move 
the appeals from January 10, 2001, to December 6, 2000. 2. Alice Barkley, attorney for the appellant in 
V00-168, asked the Board to keep the appeals on January 10, 2001. 3. Joe O'Donoghue commented on 
Proposition L. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - 
SPEAKERS : 1. Commissioner Cullum discussed the comments made by Joe O'Donoghue, and on the 
request made by Jane Martin. 2. President Chin also discussed the request made by Jane Martin. 



(3) REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 415 Bryant Street. Letter from Laurel S. Stanley, attorney for David Fink, 
appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-145, heard October 18, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to UPHOLD the subject 
site permit with no modifications, and with NEGATIVE DECLARATION FINDINGS which were 
incorporated by reference. When polled as to whether each member read and considered the negative 
declaration for the subject project, all present members answered "aye." 

ACTION : After discussion, the Board voted 1-4 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders, 
Commissioner El Qadah, and Commissioner Mclnerney dissented) to grant the request for rehearing. 
Four votes being necessary to grant a request for rehearing, the motion FAILED and the said request 
was DENIED. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. NOVEMBER 8, 2000 

SPEAKERS : 1. David Fink, appellant/requestor, urged the Board to grant the request for rehearing. 
2. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, asked the Board to deny the request. 



(4) APPEAL NO. 00-143 

PEG O'MALLEY, Appellant [1 35 Carl Street. 

vs. [Zoning Administrator's determination 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [dated August 18, 2000 that the proposal 

[to change the basement unit into a 
[common area laundry and private 
[storage facilities for use by all of the 
[building's occupants will constitute a 
[removal of a unit and not a dwelling unit 
[merger. 

[PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AFTER 
[TESTIMONY NOVEMBER 1, 2000. 
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
[TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the 
matter to December 6, 2000. 

SPEAKER : Lawrence Badiner, ZA, confirmed that he had spoken with Brett Gladstone, attorney for the 
appellant, and that he consented to Mr. Gladstone's continuance request. 



Items 5 and 6 were heard together 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-114 

RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant [2258 Beach Street. 

vs. [Zoning Administrator determination 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [dated June 29, 2000 that a second 

[kitchen can be installed in the one- 
[family house only as part of a second 
[unit and, with the current parking 
[configuration in the garage, only if an 
[off-street parking variance is sought and 
[granted by the Zoning Administrator. 
[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney 
abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. Then, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the 
Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney recused) to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator onj 
CONDITION that a Notice of Special Restrictions be recorded that requires removal of the second 
kitchen upon sale of the subject property, with a FINDING that the Board's decision is based on the 
appellant's medical needs, and with a further FINDING that the second kitchen does not constitute a 
second unit. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Mark Hennigh, attorney for appellant in both Appeal 00-114 and 00-124, urged the 
Board to overturn both determinations. 2. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, defended the two determinations. 
3. Larry Paul, architect for the appellant, answered technical questions about the proposed projects. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 



(6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-124 



RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[2258 Beach Street. 

[Zoning Administrator determination 
[dated July 19, 2000 that the proposed 
[greenhouse on the existing rear deck 
[cannot be approved without additional 
[accurate drawings and a site plan, 
[notification under Planning Code 
[Section 311, submittal of a copy of the 
[approved permit application and 
[drawings for the existing lower deck, 
[and the five foot setback on each side 
[of the greenhouse must be open to the 
[sky requiring relocation of the existing 
[stair and landing. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/25/8211. 
[FOR REHEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney 
abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. Then, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the 
Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney recused) to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator with a 
FINDING that Planning Code Section 311 has been satisfied with the Board's public hearing, on 
CONDITION that the stairway be removed, and on CONDITION that the subject deck on the right hand 
side be setback five feet. 



SPEAKERS : Same as Appeal 00-114. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 99-112 



WAI MING & KWAN YUK M. LUK, Appellants 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[3647-49 -23rd Street.' 
[Determinations of the Zoning Admin- 
istrator dated June 25 and July 13, 1999 
[that the laundromat business is limited 
[by Planning Code Sections 182, 710.40 
[and 790.102(e) to serve only the 
[immediate neighborhood with all 
[washing and cleaning done on-site and 
[with all windows closed, with 
[compliance within 30 days or abatement 
[action to be pursued. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning 
Administrator with the following CONDITIONS: that the appellant use the green zone for customers and 
not for permanently parking his commercial vehicles; and that deliveries only come from the appellant's 
second outlet at 1001 Church Street and to be limited to two deliveries per day between the hours of 11 - 
1 1 :30 a.m. and 4:30 - 5 p.m. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the determinations. 2. Alexander Weyand, attorney 
for appellant, urged the Board to overturn the said determination. 3. Jason Luk (AKA Wai Ming Luk), co- 
appellant, answered questions posed to him by his attorney and the Board. Public Comment for the 
ZA: Mark Anderson and Kim Anderson. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. NOVEMBER 8. 2000 

Items (8A) through (8K) were heard together 

(8A) APPEAL NO. 00-170 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [555 - 4th Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (12 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825950S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8B) APPEAL NO. 00-171 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [48 Zoe Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (18 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825944S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8C) APPEAL NO. 00-172 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [25 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825945S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8D) APPEAL NO. 00-173 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [35 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825946S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8E) APPEAL NO. 00-174 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [55 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (18 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825947S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8F) APPEAL NO. 00-175 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [75 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825948S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. NOVEMBER 8, 2000 

(8G) APPEAL NO. 00-176 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [545 - 4th Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (12 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825949S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8H) APPEAL NO. 00-177 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [88 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825951 S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(81) APPEAL NO. 00-178 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [48 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (18 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825952S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8J) APPEAL NO. 00-179 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [28 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825953S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(8K) APPEAL NO. 00-180 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [18 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (14 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825954S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney 
abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner Mclnerney. Then, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the 
Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Mclnerney recused) to RESCHEDULE all the matters to December 6, 
2000, with notification sent to the appellant's attorney via mail and facsimile. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, agreed to the rescheduling. 2. Sue Hestor, 
attorney for appellant, did not appear. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. NOVEMBER 8. 2000 



There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. 




6 



*v. — — «•' — ~*7 t 




Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 




Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 



Joou qiQ «ipueag ulbw 
jaquao uoLq.euuoj.ui quauauaAog 



REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS 

T, 7 ? 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 

5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET) 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. r-*^v^. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . NOV \ 3 2QQn 

SAN FRANCISCO 

(3) REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : PUBLIC LIBRARY 

ITEM A : Revocation of Taxicab Medallion No. 942. Letter from Cindy Lee, attorney for Matthew Wong, 
appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-036, heard July 12, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner 
El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the revocation. Four votes being necessary to overturn any 
departmental action, the Taxicab Commission's decision to revoke the appellant's medallion was 
UPHELD. 

ITEM B : Revocation of Taxicab Medallion No. 797. Letter from Wing C. Lee, attorney for Jun Wai Chin, 
appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-104, heard October 4, 2000. Upon motion by President 
Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Cullum and Mclnerney dissented) to overrule the Taxicab 
Commission and replace the revocation with a four-month suspension. Four votes being necessary to 
overturn any departmental action, the motion FAILED and the revocation was UPHELD. 

ITEM C : 347A Masonic Avenue. Letter from John Mallory, permit holder requesting rehearing of Appeal 
No. 00-059, heard June 7, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-0 
(Commissioner Cullum absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the subject wall be relocated to 
the original location as on the subdivision map, and on further CONDITION that all bathrooms, sinks and 
kitchens built in the storage area be removed. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-084 

ROY CURRY, Appellant [Revocation on May 23, 2000, of Taxicab 

vs. [Medallion #856. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 2000-034. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-127 

FRED ARKEDER, Appellant [Revocation on August 1 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion #712. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 2000-62. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(6) APPEAL NO. 00-103 

TERRANCE ALLAN, Appellant [561 Baker Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 11, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [and suspension June 30, to Robert 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Sigmund, permit to Alter a Building 

[(remove top floor of occupancy to 
[include bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms; 
[remove private computer room in 
[basement; provide one hour fire-rated 
[door to boiler room; remove obstruction 
[from rear stair). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/11/6894. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED OCTOBER 4, 2000. 
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
[TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 - PAGE 2 






APPEAL NO. 00-109 



MARK BRADY, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. Respondent 



Acting Zoning 
July 6, 2000 
approved plans 



[640 Wisconsin Street. 

[Determination by the 

[Administrator dated 

[requiring ievisions to 

[regarding front setback requirements. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/14/1841. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 26, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 



3) 



APPEAL NO. V00-160 



MARK BRADY, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[640 Wisconsin Street. 

[Appeal of Conditions of Setback 

[Variance (add third story to an existing 

[two-story single-family dwelling) granted 

[on September 18, 2000. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9) 



APPEAL NO. 00-163 



WILBERT L. & JODI FREEMAN, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



[180 Leland Avenue. 

[Protesting issuance on September 16, 

[2000, to Donald W. Wong, permit to 

[Alter a Building (remove illegal unit 

[including kitchen, bath, two non-bearing 

[interior walls; rearrange existing bath 

[and kitchen). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/09/16/0731) 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(10) 



APPEAL NO. 00-164 



GLENN GEE, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[1500 Cole Street. 

[Protesting issuance on September 19, 
[2000, to William Wolcott, permit to Alter 
[a Building (third story vertical addition to 
[include master bedroom and bathroom 
[with new stairs to story; add new 
[bathroom to SW corner at second floor). 
[APPLICATION NO. 991 5721 S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 00-183 



DOLORES SALOMON, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[347 Guttenberg Street. 
[Protesting issuance on July 18, 2000, to 
[William DeMartini, permit to Erect a 
[Building (two-story single-family dwel- 

Ding). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/09/9504. 

[JURISDICTION GRANTED SEPT 27, 

[2000. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (12A) through (12E) shall be heard together 



(12A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-191 



ANDREW C. FREEMAN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2412 Harrison Street. 
[Protesting issuance on October 16, 
[2000, to Mariposa Management, permit 
[to Erect a Building (28 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/02/6778S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(12B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-192 



ANDREW C. FREEMAN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2412 Harrison Street. 

[Protesting issuance on October 16, 

[2000, to Mariposa Management, permit 

[to Demolish a Building (industrial/com- 

[mercial). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/02/6779. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(12C) 



APPEAL NO. 00-193 



ANDREW C. FREEMAN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2412 Harrison Street. 

[Protesting issuance on October 16, 

[2000, to Mariposa Management, permit 

[to Demolish a Building (industrial/com- 

[mercial). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/02/6780. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(12D) 



APPEAL NO. 00-203 



MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2412 Harrison Street. 
[Protesting issuance on October 16, 
[2000, to Mariposa Management, permit 
[to Erect a Building (28 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/02/6778S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(12E) 



APPEAL NO. 00-204 



MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION. Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2412 Harrison Street. 

[Protesting issuance on October 16, 

[2000, to Mariposa Management, permit 

[to Demolish a Building (industrial/com- 

[mercial). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/02/6779. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (13A) through (13J) shall be heard together 



(13A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-184 



GISH ENDO WHOLESALE FLORIST, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[673 Brannan Street. 
[Protesting issuance on October 16, 
[2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 
[Erect a Building (48 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9907389S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(13B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-185 



GISH ENDO WHOLESALE FLORIST, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[178 Bluxome Street. 
[Protesting issuance on October 16, 
[2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 
[Erect a Building (42 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9907391 S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(13C) 



APPEAL NO. 00-186 



GISH ENDO WHOLESALE FLORIST, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[683 Brannan Street. 
[Protesting issuance on October 16, 
[2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 
[Erect a Building (39 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9907390S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 - PAGE 4 



13D) APPEAL NO. 00-187 

3ISH ENDO WHOLESALE FLORIST, Appellant [168 Bluxome Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT OF BUILDiNG INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (48 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907388S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13E) APPEAL NO. 00-188 

GISH ENDO WHOLESALE FLORIST, Appellant [685 Brannan Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Demolish a Building (warehouse). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/03/8903. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13F) APPEAL NO. 00-205 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [673 Brannan Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (48 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907389S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13G) APPEAL NO. 00-206 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [178 Bluxome Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (42 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907391 S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13H) APPEAL NO. 00-207 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [683 Brannan Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (39 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907390S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(131) APPEAL NO. 00-208 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [168 Bluxome Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (48 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907388S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13J) APPEAL NO. 00-209 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [685 Brannan Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Demolish a Building (warehouse). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/03/8903. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ADJOURNMENT. 



Note: Each item on this agenda may include the following documents: 

1. Appellant's statement and rebuttal brief. 

2. Permit holder's response and rebuttal brief. 

3. Department decision, permit, detemnination or resolution. 

4. Public conrespondence. 

These items are available for review at the Board's office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, front counter. 



MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS 



ARNOLD Y.K. CHIN PRESIDENT 

SABRINA N. SAUNDERS VICE PRESIDENT 

CAROLE S. CULLUM COMMISSIONER 

ALLAM M. EL QADAH COMMISSIONER 

JOHN E. MCINERNEY, III COMMISSIONER 



EASTELLER BRUIHL - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 576-0700 

PROCEDURE AT HEARINGS 

The order of presentation of an appeal shall be as follows: In the case of appeal of denials, 
revocations and suspensions the representatives of the department, board, commission or person 
from whose order the appeal is taken shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes for their 
presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. 

The appellant whose permit has been denied, revoked or suspended shall be allowed seven minutes 
for oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. 

In the case of protest appeals, the protestor shall speak first and shall be allowed seven minutes to 
present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal, and the permit holder shall be allowed seven 
minutes to present oral argument and three minutes for rebuttal. The Board may request a 
departmental response at its own discretion. 

Other persons desiring to speak before the Board on an appeal may speak once for up to three 
minutes. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

Mailed notices of public hearings on appeals are sent to all parties at least five days prior to the date 
of hearing. In the event that a matter is continued to a specific date by the presiding officer and 
announced to the parties in the hearing room, no additional mailed notice will be sent. Please call 
the Board office at 575-6880 for scheduling or other information during regular business hours, or 
visit our website at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdappeal/index.html . 

Briefs are limited to twelve pages, excluding exhibits, which should be tabbed for easy reference. 

The complete Rules of the Board are available for review at the Board office. 

Material submitted by the public for Board review prior to a scheduled hearing before the Board, 
should be addressed to Arnold Y.K. Chin, President, and be received at the Board office, 1660 
Mission Street, Room 3036, no later than 4:00 p.m. the Thursday (six days) prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. Persons unable to attend the scheduled public hearing may submit written comments 
regarding a calendared item to the Board office. Comments received before noon on the day of the 
hearing will be made a part of the official record and will be brought to the attention of the Board at 
the public hearing. For complete distribution to all Commissioners of the Board, necessary staff and 
case files, submit an original and ten copies. 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, the approval of a variance or 
development permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at 
the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of 
Appeals at, or prior to, the public hearing. 

Calendared items are sometimes withdrawn or rescheduled to a later date prior to hearing, or are 
taken out of order to accommodate special needs. The Board urges all parties to be present in the 
hearing room from 5:30 p.m. so that everyone has an opportunity to participate in the relevant public 
hearing when it is called. 

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING 

Written requests for rehearing must be filed within ten days from the date of a decision and may be 
filed only by principals in the appeal. See Article 5, Section 6 for complete rule on rehearings. 



ACCESSIBILITY INFORMATION 

A sound enhancement system is used at the hearing. 

American Sign Language interpreters will" be available upon request. Please contact Catherine 
Johnson at 575-6880 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Late requests will be honored if possible. 

Minutes of the hearing are available in alternative formats. If you require the use of a reader during 
•he meeting, please contact Catherine Johnson at 575-6880, at least 72 hours in advance of need. 

Individuals with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or related 
disabilities should call the accessibility hotline at 554-6060 to discuss meeting accessibility. In order 
to assist the City's efforts to accommodate such people, attendees at public meetings are reminded 
that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical based products. Please help the City to 
accommodate these individuals. 

The closest BART station is the Civic Center station at 8th and Market Streets. Accessible MUNI 
Metro lines serving this location are the J, K, L, M and N which stop at Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street, and Civic Center station, and the 31 and 42 bus lines. For information about MUNI accessible 
services call 923-6142. 






There is accessible parking in the Civic Center Garage under the Civic Center Plaza across Polk d 
Street from City Hall. 



Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) will be available. 

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. 
Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the 
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and 
that City operations are open to the people's review. 

For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact the Sunshine Ordinance Task 
Force: Donna Hall, Administrator, City Hall, Room 244, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San 
Francisco, CA 94102-4689, telephone (415) 554-7724, fax (415) 554-5163, and e-mail 
Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us. Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the 
Sunshine Task Force, the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's web site at 
www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine . 

LOBBYING ACTIVITY 

The Ethics Commission of the City and County of San Francisco has asked us to remind individuals 
and entities that influence or attempt to influence local legislative or administrative action that they. 
may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (S.F. Administrative _Code 16.520-16.534) 
to register and report lobbying activity. For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please 
contact the Ethics Commission, telephone (415) 554-9510, web site www.ci.sf.ca.us/ethics , fax 
(415)703-0121. 






CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Board of Appeals 

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 

1660 Mission Street, Room 3036 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(415)575-6880 



S.F. PUBLIC LIBRARY-G0V.INF0R 
LARKIN & GROVE STS. - CENTER 
DEPARTMENT 41 



. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE 

x SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS D0CLJ MENTS DEPT. 



NOV 2 9 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
5:30 P.M.. CITY HALL, ROOM 416 PUBLIC LIBRARY 



WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 

7 /?,,■ j 



1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET ) 

PRESENT : President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, 
Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John Mclnemey. 

Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department 
of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI). 

ABSENT : Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the 
Board. 

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

SPEAKERS : Barry Taranto, Joe O'Donoghue, Angus McCarthy and Joe Cassidy. 



(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - 
SPEAKERS : Commissioner Cullum, Commissioner Mclnerney, President Chin and Commissioner El 
Qadah. 



(3) REQUESTS FOR REHEARING : 

ITEM A : Revocation of Taxicab Medallion No. 942. Letter from Cindy Lee, attorney for Matthew Wong, 
appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-036, heard July 12, 2000. Upon motion by 
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner 
El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the revocation. Four votes being necessary to overturn any 
departmental action, the Taxicab Commission's decision to revoke the appellant's medallion was 
UPHELD. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 1-4 (President 
Chin, Commissioner Cullum, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to deny 
the request for rehearing. The motion FAILED and the request was GRANTED, with the rehearing date 
to be set at a later time. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. NOVEMBER 15. 2000 



SPEAKERS : 1. Cindy Lee, attorney for requestor/appellant, urged the Board to grant the request. 
2. Thomas Owen, DCA, asked the Board to deny the request. 

ITEM B : Revocation of Taxicab Medallion No. 797. Letter from Wing C. Lee, attorney for Jun Wai Chin, 
appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-104, heard October 4, 2000. Upon motion by President 
Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Cullum and Mclnerney dissented) to overrule the Taxicab 
Commission and replace the revocation with a four-month suspension. Four votes being necessary to 
overturn any departmental action, the motion FAILED and the revocation was UPHELD. 

ACTION : Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the request for rehearing. 

SPEAKERS : The requestor/appellant and his attorney were not present when the matter was called and 
passed over several times. 

ITEM C : 347A Masonic Avenue. Letter from John Mallory, permit holder requesting rehearing of Appeal 
No. 00-059, heard June 7, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-C 
(Commissioner Cullum absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the subject wall be relocated tc 
the original location as on the subdivision map, and on further CONDITION that all bathrooms, sinks anc 
kitchens built in the storage area be removed. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the 
request for rehearing, with the rehearing date to be set at a later time. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Jack Wholey, attorney for the requestor/permit holder, urged the Board to grant the 
rehearing. 2. Christopher Visher, attorney for the appellant, also asked the Board to grant the request. 



(4) APPEAL NO. 00-084 

ROY CURRY, Appellant [Revocation on May 23, 2000, of Taxicab 

vs. [Medallion #856. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 2000-034. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE 
the Taxicab Commission and REPLACE it with a two-month suspension. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Thomas Owen, DCA, explained the reasons behind the revocation. 2. Jaime.* 
Margolis, attorney for the appellant, urged the Board to overturn the revocation. 3. Craig O'Connor wa; 
a witness for the appellant. 4. David Massette also was a witness for the appellant. Public Commen 
for the Appellant: James Maddo. 

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-127 

FRED ARKEDER, Appellant [Revocation on August 1 2000, of 

vs. [Taxicab Medallion #712. 

TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent [RESOLUTION NO. 2000-62. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 



ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to 
OVERRULE the Taxicab Commission and REPLACE the subject revocation with a three-month 
suspension. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Thomas Owen, DCA, explained the revocation. 2. Geoffrey Rotwein, attorney for the 
appellant, urged the Board to overturn the revocation. 3. Fred Arkeder, appellant, answered some 
questions from his attorney. Public Comment for the Taxicab Commission: Barry Taranto. Public 
Comment for the Appellant: Joe O'Donoghue. 



(6) APPEAL NO. 00-103 

TERRANCE ALLAN, Appellant [561 Baker Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on May 11, 2000, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [and suspension June 30, to Robert 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Sigmund, permit to Alter a Building 

[(remove top floor of occupancy to 
[include bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms; 
[remove private computer room in 
[basement; provide one hour fire-rated 
[door to boiler room; remove obstruction 
[from rear stair). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/11/6894. 
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 
[CLOSED OCTOBER 4, 2000. 
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
[TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnemey, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD 
the sections of the subject permit that request removal of the improvements on the ground floor, to 
remove the improvements on the roof, to open both stairways, for fire-rated doors to be installed, and 
that improvements in the attic space as well as the modified stairways meet the requirements of the 
Housing Code. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Laurence Komfield, CBI, DBI, reported on the life/safety issues in the subject unit. 
2. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, commented on certain zoning issues. 3. Steven Collier, attorney for 
appellant, gave a status report to the Board. 4. Terrance Allan, appellant, answered some questions 
from his attorney. 5. Andrew Wiegel, attorney for the permit holder, also gave the Board a status 
report. Public Comment for the Appellant: Joe O'Donoghue. 

(7) APPEAL NO. 00-109 

MARK BRADY, Appellant [640 Wisconsin Street. 

vs. [Determination by the Acting Zoning 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [Administrator dated July 6, 2000 

[requiring revisions to approved plans 

[regarding front setback requirements. 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/14/1841. 

[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND 

[CLOSED JULY 26, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 
ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant at the hearing. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 15. 2000 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. V00-1 60 



(9) 



(10) 



MARK BRADY, Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[640 Wisconsin Street. 

[Appeal of Conditions of Setback 

[Variance (add third story to an existing 

[two-story single-family dwelling) granted 

[on September 18, 2000. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-1 
(Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the subject variance. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the variance and its conditions. 2. Mark Brady 
appellant, urged the Board to overturn said conditions. 



APPEAL NO. 00-163 



WILBERT L. & JODI FREEMAN, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 



[180 Leland Avenue. 
[Protesting issuance on September 16, 
. [2000, to Donald W. Wong, permit to 
[Alter a Building (remove illegal unit 
[including kitchen, bath, two non-bearing 
[interior walls; rearrange existing bath 
[and kitchen). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/09/16/0731) 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE 
the matter to January 17, 2001, with the public hearing CLOSED, with a report from the Chief Building 
Inspector on the life/safety issues concerning the occupied unit, and with a report from the Zoning 
Administrator concerning the zoning issues pertaining to the subject property. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Wilbert Freeman, appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. Jonathan 
Bornstein, attorney for the permit holder, urged the Board to grant the subject permit. 3. Lawrence 
Badiner, ZA, defended the issuance of the permit. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, discussed issues 
raised by the principals. Public Comment for the Appellants: Joe O'Donoghue, Shirley Dorton. 



GLENN GEE, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



APPEAL NO. 00-164 

[1500 Cole Street. 






[Protesting issuance on September 19, 
[2000, to William Wolcott, permit to Alter 
[a Building (third story vertical addition to 
[include master bedroom and bathroom 
[with new stairs to story; add new 
[bathroom to SW corner at second floor). 
[APPLICATION NO. 991 5721 S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 



ACTION : Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE the matter 
to February 7, 2001 at the written request of both parties. 

SPEAKERS: None. 



(11) APPEAL NO. 00-183 

DOLORES SALOMON, Appellant [347 Guttenberg Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on July 18, 2000, to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [William DeMartini, permit to Erect a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (two-story single-family dwel- 

ling). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/09/9504. 
[JURISDICTION GRANTED SEPT. 27, 
[2000. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Mclnerney, the Board voted 4-1 
(Commissioner Cullum dissented) to UPHOLD the subject permit on CONDITION that finished siding 
be used on all sides of the subject property that are exposed, specifically a pre-painted type of material 
that prevents weathering problems. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Dolores Salomon, appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. William DeMartini, 
permit holder, urged the Board to grant the permit. 3. Annette DeMartini, wife of the permit holder, also 
urged the Board to grant the permit. No Public Comment. 



(12A) APPEAL NO. 00-191 

ANDREW C. FREEMAN, Appellant [2412 Harrison Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to Mariposa Management, permit 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [to Erect a Building (28 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/02/6778S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 

(12B) APPEAL NO. 00-192 

ANDREW C. FREEMAN, Appellant [2412 Harrison Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to Mariposa Management, permit 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [to Demolish a Building (industrial/com- 

[mercial). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/02/6779. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. NOVEMBER 15, 2000 



i12C) 



APPEAL NO. 00-193 



ANDREW C. FREEMAN, Appellant 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2412 Harrison Street. 

[Protesting issuance on October 16, 

[2000, to Mariposa Management, permit 

[to Demolish a Building (industrial/com- 

[mercial). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/02/6780. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



ACTION : This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing. 



Items 12(D) and 12(E) were heard together : 



(12D) 



APPEAL NO. 00-203 



MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2412 Harrison Street. 
[Protesting issuance on October 16, 
[2000, to Mariposa Management, permit 
[to Erect a Building (28 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/02/6778S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(12E) 



APPEAL NO. 00-204 



MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[2412 Harrison Street. 

[Protesting issuance on October 16, 

[2000, to Mariposa Management, permit 

[to Demolish a Building (industrial/com- 

[mercial). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/02/6779. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






ACTION : Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 1-4 ( President Chin, Vice President 
Saunders, Commissioner El Qadah and Commissioner Mclnerney dissented) to continue the matter to 
December 6, 2000. Three votes being necessary to continue any matter, the motion FAILED and the 
public hearing continued. Then, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to 
UPHOLD both permits on CONDITION that a second Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) be recorded 
that places future tenants on notice that the Mission Recreation Center exists in the immediate area, 
with a draft of the said NSR to be delivered to Commissioner Cullum within the 10-day rehearing 
period. 

SPEAKERS : 1. Sue Hestor, attorney appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. Alice Barkley, 
attorney for the permit holder, urged the Board to grant the permits. 3. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, 
defended the issuance of both permits. 



6 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, NOVEMBER 15, 2000 



Items (13A) through (13J) were heard together : 

(13A) APPEAL NO. 00-184 

GISH ENDO WHOLESALE FLORIST, Appellant [673 Brannan Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (48 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907389S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13B) APPEAL NO. 00-185 

GISH ENDO WHOLESALE FLORIST, Appellant [178 Bluxome Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (42 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907391 S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13C) APPEAL NO. 00-186 

GISH ENDO WHOLESALE FLORIST, Appellant [683 Brannan Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (39 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907390S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13D) APPEAL NO. 00-187 

GISH ENDO WHOLESALE FLORIST, Appellant [168 Bluxome Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (48 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907388S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13E) APPEAL NO. 00-188 

GISH ENDO WHOLESALE FLORIST, Appellant [685 Brannan Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Demolish a Building (warehouse). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/03/8903. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13F) APPEAL NO. 00-205 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [673 Brannan Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (48 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907389S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 






MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS. NOVEMBER 15. 2000 

(13G) APPEAL NO. 00-206 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [178 Bluxome Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (42 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907391 S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13H) APPEAL NO. 00-207 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [683 Brannan Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (39 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907390S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(131) APPEAL NO. 00-208 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [168 Bluxome Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Erect a Building (48 live/work units). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9907388S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(13J) APPEAL NO. 00-209 

COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant [GB5 Brannan Street. ' 

vs. [Protesting issuance on October 16, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [2000, to UMB Corporation, permit to 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Demolish a Building (warehouse). 

[APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/03/8903. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

ACTION : After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-1 
(Commissioner Cullum dissented) to UPHOLD all five subject permits. 

SPEAKERS : 1 . Sue Hestor, attorney for the Coalition for Jobs, Arts & Housing, outlined the reasons 
for their appeals. 2. John Pun, agent for Gish Endo Wholesale Florist, also outlined the reasons for 
their appeals. 3. Steven Vettel, attorney for the permit holder, urged the Board to grant all five permits. 
4. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, defended the issuance of the permits. Public Comment for the Permit 
Holder: Joe O'Donoghue and Alice Barkley. Public Comment for the Appellants: None. 



There being no further business, President Chir>adjourned the meeting at 1 1:15 p.m. 




^smopzblm9 ^jjai :imv Arnold Y.K. Chin, President 
uoou i|}g 'tpucig ulpw >w 






J81U30 uo.14euLioj.uT luauiuaaAog 



Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary 



Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 
576-0700. 

8 






REGULAR MEETING OF THE^AN FRANCISCO.BOARD OF APPEALS 

DOCUMENTS DEPT 
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2000 

°K 5 2000 
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416 SAN FRANc/SCo 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK ffi^1^ft Ry 



(1) PUBLIC COMMENT : At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to 
the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect 
to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the 
meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at 
which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your 
opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. 
Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that 
comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another 
time during the meeting. 

(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS . 

(3) REQUEST FOR REHEARING : 537 Divisadero Street. Letter from Thomas F. Chan, attorney for 
Monetary Management of California dba "Payday Loans Money Mart Checks Cashed", appellant 
requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-102, heard September 20, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner 
Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Mclnemey dissented) to GRANT the subject permit on 
CONDITION that the size of the words "Money Mart" and "Western Union" stay unchanged, and with the 
words "Check Cashing" and "Payday Loans" be displayed underneath the words "Money Mart" and 
"Western Union" with no greater than two inch type face. 

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-181 

ELIZABETH JAMERSON, Appellant [1 592-1 594 Golden Gate Avenue. 

vs. [Determination dated September 27, 

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent [2000 by the Zoning Administrator that 

[after review of the request submitted by 
[the Neighbors of the New Laguna 
[Market and departmental records, there 
[is sufficient evidence to constitute clear 
[intent on the part of the owner to 
[abandon the Limited Commercial Use 
[for the subject property. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

Items (5A) and (SB) shall be heard together 

(5A) APPEAL NO. 98-055 

TUDOR HILL TENANTS ASSN., Appellant [1111-1133 Green Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on March 24, 1998, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to George Hoffberg, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (split into two buildings; new fire 

[waiis and other code upgrades as 
[required per meeting and letter dated 
[January 22, 1996). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9802162. 
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 

(5B) APPEAL NO. 98-056 

TUDOR HILL TENANTS ASSN., Appellant [1 1 1 1-1 133 Green Street. 

vs. [Protesting issuance on March 24, 1998, 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [to George Hoffberg, permit to Alter a 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [Building (split existing building on one 

[lot into two buildings on two lots; new 

[fire walls). 

[APPLICATION NO. 9802163. 

[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, DECEMBER 6, 2000 - PAGE 2 



6) 



APPEAL NO. 00-143 



PEG O'MALLEY. Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. Respondent 



[135 Carl Street. 

[Zoning Administrator's determination 

[dated August 18, 2000 that the proposal 

[to change the basement unit into a 

[common area laundry and private 

[storage facilities for use by all of the 

[building's occupants will constitute a 

[removal of a unit and not a dwelling unit 

[merger. 

[PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AFTER 

[TESTIMONY NOVEMBER 1, 2000. 

[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

[TODAY. 



(7) 



APPEAL NO. 00-217 



TODD & MARTINA FAHRNER , Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL 



[358 San Carlos Street. 
[Denial on November 8, 2000, of permit 
[to Alter a Building (convert existing 
[vacant three-unit dwelling into a single 
[family dwelling with new single parking 
[space at existing first floor; overall 
[interior remodel as noted on plans). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/07/2064S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(8) 



APPEAL NO. 00-167 



SALVATORE & SHIRLEY VERNALE, Appellants 

vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[952 DeHaro Street. 

[Protesting issuance on September 25, 
[2000, to Raymond Chan, permit to Alter 
[a Building (interior partition work; 
[remodel baths and kitchen; minor 
[exterior front elevation change; 
[structural and room framing under 
[separate addendum permit). 
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/09/26/1572. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



Items (9A) through (9K) shall be heard together 



(9A) 



APPEAL NO. 00-170 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[555 - 4th Street. 

[Protesting issuance on September 26, 
[2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 
[Erect a Building (12 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9825950S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9B) 



APPEAL NO. 00-171 



SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[48 Zoe Street. 

[Protesting issuance on September 26, 
[2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 
[Erect a Building (18 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9825944S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(9C) APPEAL NO. 00-172 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [25 Welsh Street. 

Appellant 
vs. 
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent 
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL 



[Protesting issuance on September 26, 
[2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 
[Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 
[APPLICATION NO. 9825945S. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, DECEMBER 6, 2000 - PAGE 3 



(9D) APPEAL NO. 00-173 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [35 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825946S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9E) APPEAL NO. 00-174 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [55 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (18 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825947S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9F) APPEAL NO. 00-175 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [75 Welsh Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825948S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9G) APPEAL NO. 00-176 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [545 - 4th Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (12 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825949S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9H) APPEAL NO. 00-177 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [88 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825951 S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(91) APPEAL NO. 00-178 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [48 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (18 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825952S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9J) APPEAL NO. 00-179 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [28 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (16 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825953S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 

(9K) APPEAL NO. 00-180 

SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, [18 Freelon Street. 

Appellant [Protesting issuance on September 26, 
vs. [2000, to 557 - 4th Street LLC, permit to 

DEPT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent [Erect a Building (14 live/work units). 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL [APPLICATION NO. 9825954S. 

[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, DECEMBER 6, 2000 - PAGE 4 



\^0) 



APPEAL NO. 00-090 



HAYES VALLEY PROPERTIES. Appellant 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[529 Hayes Street. 

[Notice of Violation issued by the Zoning 
[Administrator dated June 6, 2000, 
[requiring that Hayes Valley Properties 
[immediately eliminate the advertising 
[office use on the ground floor, and 
[provide documentation that the violation 
[has been abated within 15 days from 
[the date of the Notice, under Planning 
[Code Sections 790. 1 06 and 790. 1 08. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



(11) 



APPEAL NO. 00-161 



ROBERT T. HAYES, dba "EDWARD II BED AND 

BREAKFAST", Appellant 
vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[3155 Scott Street. 

[Order to Cease Violation of the Planning 
[Code dated September 11, 2000 for 
[billboard exceeding 24 feet in height 
[constructed without proper permits on 
[the west-facing wall of the building. 
[FOR HEARING TODAY. 



12) 



APPEAL NO. V00-1 69 



INTL. FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL & 
TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 21 

vs. 
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent 



[1660 Mission Street. 

[Protesting granting on September 27, 

[2000 to the Department of Building 

[Inspection, Off-Street Parking Variance 

[to construct a six-story addition